IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


1.1 


Ul    12.5 


no 


Ui 

lU 

■it 


2.2 


L£    12.0 


i 

M 


||l.25    |||.4    |||||L6 

^ 

6"     

► 

^' 


^J. 


y 


^ 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14S80 

(716)  872-4503 


// 


^  A 


^>' 


^ 


V. 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notot/Notas  tack.niques  at  bibiiographiquas 


Tha  inatituta  haa  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy  availabia  'or  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibilographically  unlqua, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  changa 
tha  usual  mathod  of  filming,  ara  chackad  balow. 


Colourad  covars/ 
Couvartura  da  coulaur 


r~~|   Covers  damaged/ 


D 


D 
D 


D 


D 


Couverture  endommagda 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6a  et/ou  peliiculte 


I      I   Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de    ouverture  manque 


v71   Coloured  maps/ 

J-^   Cartes  gtographiques  en  couieur 


Coloured  inic  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  biacic)/ 
Encra  de  couieur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I   Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  iliustrationa  en  couieur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Raii4  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrde  peut  causer  de  i'ombre  ou  da  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int6rieure 

Bianic  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutias 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  la  texte, 
mais,  lorsqua  cela  Atait  poasibie.  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6X6  film6es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairas  suppi6mentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meiileur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6tA  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  4e  vue  bibiiographique,  qui  pauvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mithoda  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquto  ci-dessous. 


I     I   Coloured  pages/ 


D 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  fiimi  au  taux  de  rMuction  indiquA  ci-deasous. 


Pages  de  couieur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag6es 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaur^as  et/ou  peilicuides 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxet 
Pages  ddcolordes,  tachet^es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditach^es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  inigaia  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materia 
Comprend  du  material  suppi^mantaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


r~~|  Pages  damaged/ 

I     I  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

ro  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I     I  Pages  detached/ 

rTTI  Showthrough/ 

I     I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  ref limed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiaiiement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6x6  fiim^es  6  nouveau  de  fapon  6 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


The  CO 
to  the 


Theinr 
possib 
of  the 
fiimint 


Origin) 
beginr 
the  laa 
sion,  0 
other  4 
first  pi 
sion,  a 
or  iilua 


The  lai 
shall  c 
TINUE 
which) 

Maps, 
diffare 
entlrel 
beginr 
right  a 
raquir< 
metho 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

• 

y 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

32X 

laire 

details 
ques  du 
It  modifier 
[iger  une 
e  filmage 


d/ 
|u6es 


taire 


by  errata 
fned  to 

fient 

une  pelure, 
fapon  A 


32X 

Tlie  copy  filmed  liere  has  been  reproduced  thanlcs 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Nationai  Library  of  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  ▼  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

IVIaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  lef  i  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


1  2  3 


L'exemplaire  fiimA  f ut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
gAnArositA  de: 

Bibliothdque  nationale  du  Canada 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6tA  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetA  de  l'exemplaire  fiimi,  et  en 
conformity  avec  ies  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  ia  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimte  sont  fiimte  en  commen^ant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'iliustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmte  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impreosion  ou  d'iliustration  et  en  teri.unant  par 
la  dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboies  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
derni6re  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  seion  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  ie 
symbols  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
filmAs  jk  des  taux  de  reduction  diffArents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichA,  il  est  filmA  d  partir 
de  Tangle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  ia  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Mt«tM.  8M.UTW  AMI  WEBtlER 


OM  ttm 


fJQRTH.EAStEBN  BOUN0AEY, 


',,  ;^}?fc'v'j 


wisr 


WITS  A  COPT  OP 


"THE  JAY   MAP." 


##; 


^: 


,>^-^- 


h  J  >-,««(!. 


;.?-'5^**W, 


*,'*fiiS 


"t,4 


-« 


N 


/, 


A  MEMOIR 


ON    TIIK 


NORTH-EASTERN  BOUNDARY, 


IN  CONNEXION  WITH  MR.  JAY  S  MAP, 


BV    THK 


HON.  ALBERT  GALLATIN,  LL.  D., 

PRBSIDBMT  OF  THE  S.  Y.  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY, 

PORMBRLY  ONE  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS  UNDER  THE  TREATY  Ot  GHENT, 
MINISTER    TO    OREAT  BRITAIN,    &C.  ftC. ; 


TOGETIIER  WITH 


A  SPEECH  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT, 


BY  THE 


HON.  DANIEL  WEBSTER,  LL.  D., 

SECRETARY   OF    STATE,  &C.   &C.  ; 

DELIVERED  AT  A  SPECIAL  MEETING  OF 


THE  NEW.YORK  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY, 


April  15th,  1843. 


DILIttSUa'u'BA'U'SE)  SV  ^  ©®PY  ©P  fMa  "mV  BSOJ^PqW 


/ 


NEW- YORK: 

PRINTED     FOR     THE     SOCIETY. 


1843. 


a 


'I ""'    —   "'  ""1  II'II'JIIH  IBXaS-  EZEa 


(Extract  from  a  Map 


M 


of  the 

nwtisn  'hrnimn  DDmmom 

it, 

NOHTH  AMKHICA 

.ln?Mltrlu-ll 

DRAWN  FOR  THE   NEW  YORK    HISTORICAL  SOtlET"     MA'    IHi.l 
T7ii.iJ/i//)  ii<ii,trihlirlii/ci'n  timti  Oil'  .l/)prn/iiifi">/  iiiul  iil  l/ir 
_Jiftiut\rti>f't/tr/40tr/s  thnttnujiorn-r.f  tor  Triithittii/  /'/ii/t/ii- 
/ii'iutint/  is  ijiii'/1f  I iiin/icfffi  Ih'iii  Urriii/flKt  ('lliirl.'iiiii/ 
.Irliiiil  .t'un'trs o/'t/i/i<-n  lit /mri.r ,'l' //ij  Mii/ij/lt;rf'<</i'iiiij- 
iim/  1'liinlittn'n.r  in  .hm-rii-ii.  ('/r,-iit  I'rirl  nl' ii'hii/i  lirm 
hi'i'ii  hitilr  lnki'ii  hv  thfir Itiirjxhifis Oriifrj.iiiii/  Irmis.     Mi^l^"^ 
inifliil  trthisfllTifi'  hv  tJiflfflirHi'iy''/'  IllfSiiiil  i'l'limuj        M /'        ;     .. 

mi   6^ 


t  A  N  A  J)  A 


i    cry.    ^i 


-A 


c 


f<tr 


1^       I        V< 


4 


HU     'v%J 


'/,,,     .Vmill  l>rj;,rfH.\ 


v,..*' 


[*/,.        'v„, 


fe^--V- 


vi?^/> 


^  I 


A     T     L     A     NT' 


;^ 


^uimmi    ■  1.  um-Amini.: 


^^^^^^^^^^y'.i^ Tmmv.m 


/ 


V. 


I 


?.^. . j:hs  s-»  rM  V 


# 


J.  p.  WwoMT,  Printer, 
122  Fulton  Street 


PRELIMINARY  NOTICE. 


I 


A  SPECIAL  MEETING  of  the  Ncw-YofrTc  Historical  Society  took  place  at 
the  Society's  Rooms  in  the  University  of  the  City  of  New- York,  on 
the  15th  ultimo,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  communication  from  the 
Hon.  Albert  Gallatin,  President  of  the  Society,  on  the  subject  of 
the  North-Eastern  Boundary  of  the  United  States,  in  connexion  with  a 
Map  found  amongst  the  papers  of  the  late  John  Jav,  one  of  the 
American  Commissioners  for  negotiating  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
in  1783. 

The  meeting  was  honored  by  the  attendance  of  the  Hon.  Daniel 
Webster,  Secretary  of  State,  who  had  been  invited  to  be  present  on 
this  occasion. 

In  consequence  of  the  unusual  interest  excited  in  the  community  by 
the  agitation  of  the  subject  to  be  brought  before  the  Society,  and  the  ex- 
alted reputation  of  the  venerable  President,  arrangements  were  made 
for  an  early  adjournment  of  the  meeting  to  the  large  Chapel  of  the  Uni- 
versity, in  order  to  accommodate  persons  introduced  by  the  mem- 
bers. At  eight  o'clock  p.  m.,  Mr.  Vice-President  Lawrence,  (formerly 
Secretary  of  Legation  under  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  subsequently  Charg6 
d' Affaires  of  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain,)  being  in  *he  chair,  the 
Society  adjourned  to  the  Chapel,  when  the  following  memoir  was  read 
by  Mr.  Gallatin,  assisted  by  John  Jay,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Secretaries. 


Mr.  Gallatin  was  followed  by  Mr.  Lawrence,  in  a  few  remarks, 
designed  to  call  up  Mr.  Webster,  who  responded  to  the  call  in  a 
speech  that  derived  the  highest  interest  from  the  unrivalled  ability  of  the 


ii 


speaker,  as  well  as  from  his  elevated  position  in  the  Government,  and 
as  the  negotiator,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  of  the  recent  Treaty 
of  Washington.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  Mr.  Webster  was 
repeatedly  interrupted  by  the  applause  of  the  audience ;  and  after  he 
had  concluded,  the  following  Resolution  was  adopted  with  acclamation 
by  the  Society : 


-ji^.f  ,^ 


•'  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Society  are  presented  to  the 
Honorable  the  President,  for  the  able  and  important  paper  that  has  now 
been  read,  in  relation  to  the  North-Eastern  Boundary  question  ;  and  to 
the  Honorable  Daniel  Webster,  for  his  interesting  and  eloquent  re- 
marl'TS  in  connexion  therewith  ;  and  that  copies  of  the  same  be  respect- 
fully requested  for  publication." 


th 
H 
It 
re 

m 


The  following  correspondence  subsequently  passed,  after  the  return 
of  Mr.  Webster  to  the  City  of  Washington ; 


"  New-York,  April  17th,  1843. 

♦'  iSir,— I  have  the  honor  of  communicating  to  you  the  thanks  of  the 
New- York  Historical  Society,  for  the  eloquent  and  instructive  remarks 
on  the  subject  of  the  Norlh-Eastem  Boundary,  which  you  did  the  Socie- 
ty the  favor  to  offer  in  answer  to  a  call  from  one  of  the  Vice-Presi- 
dents, at  its  meeting  on  the  15th  instant. 

I  have  also  to  request  of  you  the  favor  of  a  written  report  of  your  re- 
marks on  that  occasion,  with  a  view  to  their  publication  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Society. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.  Sir, 

With  the  highest  respect, 

Your  most  obedient  servant,  &c. 

GEORGE  FOLSOM, 

Domestic  Corresponding  Secretary 
of  the  N.  Y.  Historical  Society. 

The  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  LL.  D., 
Secretary  of  State,  &c.  ice, 

Washington,  D.  C." 


ai 
A 

isl 

di 

ir 
fo 


iii 


and 
reaty 

was 
:er  he 
[ation 


0  the 
now 
nd  to 
It  re- 
pect- 


iturn 


"  Washington,  April  22d,  1843. 
**  George  Folsom,  Esq. 

Domestic  Corresponding  Secretary 

of  the  New- York  Historical  Society  :  • 

"  Sir, — I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
the  17th  instant,  communicating  to  me  the  thanks  of  the  New- York 
Historical  Society  for  my  remarks,  delivered  in  its  presence,  on  the 
15th,  on  the  subject  of  the  North-Eastern  Boundary,  and  requesting  a 
report  of  them  for  publication  under  the  auspices  of  the  Society. 

I  feel  greatly  honored  by  this  notice  of  the  Society,  and  an  account  of 
my  remarks,  corrected  from  the  Newspaper  Press,  will  be  forwarded. 

I  have  the  the  honor  to  be.  Sir, 

Your  very  obedient  servant, 

DANIEL  WEBSTER." 


13. 

fthe 
larks 
ocie- 
resi- 


r  re- 
the 


In  pursuance  of  the  vote  of  the  Society,  Mr.  Gallatin's  Memoir, 
and  the  Speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  are  published  in  the  following  pages. 
A  Note  has  been  also  added,  in  reference  to  a  recent  debate  in  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  on  the  subject  of  the  Treaty  of  Washingtoi  ,  in  conse- 
quence of  some  extraordinary  coincidences,  chiefly  growing  out  of  the 
discovery  of  another  map  in  England,  corresponding  to  Mr.  Jay's  map, 
mentioned  in  the  speech  of  Sir  Kobert  Feel.  This  Note  will  bo 
found  immediately  succeeding  the  report  of  Mr.  Webster's  speech. 

New-York,  May  lOth,  1843. 


MR.  GALLATIN'S  MEMOIR 


ON   THE 


NORTH-EASTERN  BOUNDARY. 


Gentlemen, 

The  final  adjustment  of  the  differences,  which  had 
so  long  existed  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
respecting  our  North-Eastern  Boundary,  as  effected  by  the 
late  Treaty  of  Washington,  has  been  received  with  general 
satisfaction  by  the  American  people,  and  I  may  be  permitted 
to  add,  by  no  one  more  than  by  myself  For  although  it 
had  been  my  duty  to  defend  what  we  believed  to  be  the 
legitimate  rights  of  the  United  States,  yet  the  question  had 
appeared  to  me  to  be  one  of  abstract  right,  which  the  Gen- 
eral Government  was  not  authorized  voluntarily  to  yield 
without  the  consent  of  the  State  of  Maine  :  and  I  felt  per- 
fectly satisfied  whenever  that  was  obtained,  inasmuch  as 
the  portion  of  territory  relinquished  by  the  treaty  was,  in 
my  opinion,  of  no  real  importance  in  a  national  point  of 
view. 

It  is  much  to  be  lamented  that,  after  a  conciliatory  com- 
promise, convenient  and  honorable  to  both  countries,  and 
apparently  almost  universally  approved,  had  been  thus  hap- 
pily concluded,  an  incident  of  so  little  real  importance  as 
the  discovery  of  a  certain  Map,  on  which  is  traced  a  line  as- 
cribed to  Dr.  Franklin,  should  have  served  as  a  pretence  for 
A 


6 

renewing  the  discussion  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  And  it 
was  hardly  to  be  tolerated,  that,  in  some  quarters,  innuen- 
does should  on  that  account  have  been  made,  tending  to 
affect  the  sincerity  and  good  faith  of  our  Government. 

Under  those  circumstances,  a  map  which  had  been  used 
by  the  Hon.  John  Jay,  during  the  negotiation  of  1782,  and 
which  I  had  never  seen  before,  was  communicated  to  me  ; 
and  I  have  obtained  the  permission  of  his  son,  Mr.  William 
Jay,  to  whom  it  now  belongs,  to  lay  it  before  this  Society. 
It  is  proper  for  me  to  add,  that  this  map,  which,  since  the 
death  of  his  father,  had  always  remained  in  the  possession 
of  our  late  President,  Mr.  Peter  A.  Jay,  had  never  till  now 
been  seen  by  the  present  owner,  Mr.  William  Jay,  to  whom 
it  descended  with  his  other  papers  by  the  will  of  his  father. 

My  object  is  less  to  show  the  bearing  which  the  map  has 
on  the  points  heretofore  at  issue  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments, than  to  remove  the  impressions  made  by  the  line 
of  demarcation  ascribed  to  Dr.  Franklin.  In  doing  this,  I 
would  wish  to  avoid  a  renewed  discussion  on  the  former 
points  of  difference.  Yet  it  is  impossible  to  explain  the  in- 
ferences flowing  from  Mr.  Jay's  map,  without  stating  what 
these  points  were  ;  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  enter  no  far- 
ther into  the  discussion  than  is  necessary  to  make  myself 
intelligible. 

The  boundaries  of  the  United  States  of  America  were  de- 
fined by  the  preliminaries  of  Peace,  concluded  the  30th  day 
of  November,  1782,  and  ratified  verbatim  by  the  definitive 
treaty  of  the  3d  September,  1783,  between  the  said  States 
and  his  Britannic  Majesty,  in  the  following  words,  viz : 

"  Article  2.  And  that  all  disputes  which  might  arise  in 
«*  future  on  the  subject  of  the  boundaries  of  the  said  United 
♦'  States  may  be  prevented,  it  is  hereby  agreed  and  de- 


"  clared,  that  the  following  are  and  shall  be  their  boundaries, 
"  viz  :  from  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  viz  :  that 
"  angle  which  is  formed  by  a  line  drawn  due  north  from 
"  the  source  of  the  St.  Croix  River  to  the  Highlands,  along 
"  the  said  Highlands  which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty 
"  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  from  those  which 
"  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  to  the  northwesternmost  head 
"  of  Connecticut  River ;  thence,  down  along  the  middle  of 
"  that  river,  to  the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latitude  ;  from 
"  thence,  by  a  line  due  west  on  said  latitude,  until  it  strikes 

"  the  River  Iroquois  or  Cataraquy  ;  thence, 

" and  thence,  down  along  the  middle 

"  of  St.  Mary's  River,  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  East,  by  a 
"  line  to  be  drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  River  St.  Croix, 
"  from  its  mouth  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  to  its  source  ;  and, 
"  from  its  source,  directly  north,  to  the  aforesaid  High- 
"  lands  which  divide  the  rivers  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic 
"  Ocean  from  those  which  fall  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence : 
"  comprehending  all  islands  within  twenty  leagues  of  any 
**  part  of  the  shores  of  the  United  States,  and  lying  between 
"  lines  to  be  drawn  due  east  from  the  points,  where  the 
"  aforesaid  boundaries  between  Nova  Scotia,  on  the  one 
"  part,  and  East  Florida,  on  the  other,  shall  respectively 
"  touch  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean." 


Which  was  the  true  northwesternmost  head  of  the  River 
Connecticut,  became  subsequently  a  minor  subject  of  differ- 
ence, which  did  not  affect  the  great  question  at  issue.  But 
there  were  not  less  than  three  rivers,  emptying  themselves 
into  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  (which  is  an  inlet  of  the 
Bay  of  Fundy),  known  by  distinct  Indian  names :  and 
which  of  these  was  the  true  River  St.  Croix  had,  ever  since 
the  year  1764,  been  a  subject  of  contention  between  the 
Governments  of  Massachusetts  and  Nova  Scotia.  This 
question  was  not  decided  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty :  and  it 


^ 


8 


was  referred  by  the  treaty  of  1794  to  the  final  decision  of  a 
joint  conamission.  The  Commissioners  did,  on  the  25th  Oc- 
tober, 1798,  decide  the  river  called  Schoodiac,  and  the 
northern  branch  of  it  (called  Cheputnaticook),  to  be  the  true 
River  St.  Croix ;  and  that  its  source  was  at  the  northern- 
most head  spring  of  the  northern  branch  aforesaid.  A  mon- 
ument was  erected  at  that  spot  under  the  direction  of  the 
Commissioners. 

However  diversified  or  subdivided  may  have  been  the 
arguments  adduced  on  both  sides,  there  was  in  reality,  after 
this  decision,  but  one  question  at  issue,  viz  :  Which  were  the 
Highlands  intended  by  the  treaty  ?  For  since  the  boundary 
line  was,  from  the  monument,  to  be  run  due  north  to  the 
Highlands,  the  position  of  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia,  and  of  the  boundary  which  thence  extended  along 
the  Highlands,  depended  necessarily  and  exclusively  on  the 
position  of  those  Highlands. 


iii- 


You  know,  that  the  point  claimed  by  the  United  States* 
as  being  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  prescribed  by 
the  treaty,  is  that  where  the  due  north  line  intersects  the 
highland  which  divides  the  source  of  the  River  Metis,  a 
tributary  stream  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  from  the  source 
of  a  branch  of  the  River  Ristigouche,  which  falls  into  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence;  and  that  the  boundary  claimed  by 
them  is  along  the  Highlands  which,  from  that  point  to  the 
northwesternmost  source  of  the  Connecticut,  divide  rivers 
emptying  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  the 
various  branches  of  the  Rivers  Ristigouche,  St.  John,  Pe- 
nobscot, and  Kennebec.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  claimed 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  the  northwest  angle  of 
Nova  Scotia  was  to  be  found  on  a  point  of  the  due  north 
line,  about  forty  miles  north  of  the  monument,  at  or 
near  Mars  Hill,  which  divides  no  other  rivers  but  some  riv- 


I 


0 

ulets  which  fall  into  the  River  St.  John.  The  Highlands 
contended  for  by  Great  Britain  extend  from  that  point  to- 
wards the  source  of  the  Connecticut  River,  dividing  for  three- 
fifths  of  that  distance  the  sources  of  the  various  branches 
of  the  Penobscot  from  those  of  the  various  branches  of  the 
River  St.  John,  and  for  the  other  two-fifths,  the  sources  of 
the  tributaries  of  the  Kennebec  from  those  of  rivers  that 
empty  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence. 

For  the  better  understanding  of  the  maps,  to  which  I  shall 
hereafter  allude,  it  is  necessary  to  state,  that  during  the  course 
of  this  long  discussion,  it  was  contended,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1782, 
after  much  contention  about  that  North-Eastern  Boundary, 
at  last  did  actually  adopt,  in  that  quarter,  the  boundaries 
which  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  had,  by  her  public 
acts,  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of  Canada,  declared  to  be 
the  boundaries  of  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  respectively. 
In  order  to  enable  you  to  judge  of  the  correctness  of  that 
position,  I  will  quote  the  acts  alluded  to. 

His  Britannic  Majesty,  by  his  proclamation,  dated  the  7th 
of  October,  1763,  established  new  Governments,  and  amongst 
others  that  of  Quebec. 

The  boundaries  of  that  Government  were,  by  the  said 
proclamation,  fixed  as  follows : 

"  Bounded  on  the  Labrador  Coast  by  the  River  (a)  St. 
"  John  ;  and  from  thence,  by  a  line  drawn  from  the  head  of 
"  that  river,  through  the  Lake  St.  John,  to  the  south  end  of 
"  the  Lake  Nipissing,  from  whence  the  said  line,  crossing 


{a)  Not  the  River  St.  John  which  falls  into  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  but  one  of  the 
Bame  name,  which,  from  the  north,  falls  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 


10 


•*  the  River  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Lake  Champlain,  in  forty- 
"  five  degrees  of  north  latitude,  passes  along  the  Highlands 
"  which  divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  said 
"  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  sea,  and 
"  also  along  the  north  coast  of  the  Bay  des  Chaleurs  and 
"  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrenrc,  to  Cape  Rosiers  ; 
"  and  from  thence,  crossing  the  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Law- 
"  rence,  by  the  west  end  of  the  Island  of  Anticosti,  termi- 
"  nates  at  the  aforesaid  River  St.  John." 


(1 


*rhe  boundaries  of  the  Province  of  Quebec  were  en- 
larged in  another  quarter  by  the  act  of  Parliament  of  14th 
Geo.  in.  Chap.  83.  (1774),  commonly  called  the  Quebec  Act. 
But  those  adjacent  to  Nova  Scotia  and  Massachusetts,  were, 
by  that  act,  defined  in  words  nearly  similar  to  those  used  in 
the  proclamation  of  1763,  viz: 

*'  That  all  the  Territories,  Islands,  and  Countries  in  North 
"  America,  belonging  to  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  bounded, 
"  on  the  south,  by  a  line  from  the  Bay  of  Chaleurs  along  the 
"  Highlands  which  divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves 
"  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the 
'•  sea,  to  a  point  in  forty-five  degrees  of  northern  latitude, 
"  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  River  Connecticut,  keeping  the 
"  same  latitude  directly  west  through  the  Lake  Champlain, 
»*  until,  in  the  same  latitude,  it  meets  the  River  St.  Lawrence, 

**  from  thence,  &c be,  and  they  are  hereby, 

"  during  His  Majesty's  pleasure,  annexed  to  and  made  part 
*'  and  parcel  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  as  created  and  eS"- 
"  tablished  by  the  said  Royal  Proclamation,  of  the  7th  of 
<' October,  1763." 

The  only  difference  between  the  terms  used  respectively 


1 


11 


in  those  acts  and  in  the  treaty,  which  has  been  alleged  as 
affecting  the  boundaries  intended  by  those  instruments,  con- 
sists in  the  substitution,  in  the  treaty,  of  the  term  Atlantic 
Ocean,  instead  of  the  word  Sea  used  in  the  Proclamation 
and  in  the  Quebec  Act.  Those  terms  are  considered  by  the 
United  States  as  being  in  this  case  synonymous.  It  was  as- 
serted on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  the  term  "Atlantic 
Ocean,  in  the  treaty,  excludes  the  River  St.  John  from  the 
class  of  rivers  that  fall  into  that  ocean. 


1 


With  respect  to  the  boundary  between  the  United  States 
and  Nova  Scotia,  the  description  of  it  in  the  treaty  is  bor- 
rowed almost  verbatim,  from  that  which,  for  the  twenty  pre- 
ceding years,  had  been  assigned  by  the  British  Government 
to  Nova  Scotia.  The  limits  prescribed  for  that  Province 
are  thus  defined  in  the  commission  of  Montagu  Wilmot, 
dated  21st  November,  1763,  viz  : 


"  Our  Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  which  we  have  thought 
proper  to  restrain  and  comprise  within  the  following  limits, 
viz :  To  the  northward  our  said  Province  shall  be  bounded 
by  the  southern  boundary  of  our  Province  of  Q,uebec  as 
far  as  the  western  extremity  of  the  Bay  des  Chaleurs,  , 
.  .  .  and  to  the  westward,  although  our  said  Pro- 
vince has  anciently  extended^  and  does  of  right  extend,  as 
far  as  the  River  Pentagoet  or  Penobscot,  it  shall  be  bounded 
by  a  line  drawn  from  Cape  Sable  across  the  entrance  of 
the  Bay  of  Fundy  to  the  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  by 
the  said  River  to  its  source,  and  by  a  line  drawn  due  north 
from  thence  to  the  southern  boundary  of  our  Colony  of 
duebec." 


In  the  commissions  of  the  several  Governors  who  sue* 


12 


ceeded  Mr.  Wilmot,  viz:  William  Campbell  in  1765,  Francis 
Legge  in  1773,  and  John  Parr,  whose  commission  is  dated 
29th  July,  1782,  and  who  was  Governor  at  the  time  when 
the  preliminary  Articles  of  Peace  were  signed,  the  reserva- 
tions (in  italics)  are  omitted ;  and  the  boundaries  are  thus  ex- 
pressed, viz : 


"  Our  Province  of  Nova  Scotia,  bounded  on  the  westward 
"  by  a  line  drawn  from  Cape  Sable  across  the  Bay  of  Fundy 
•'  to  the  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  by  the  said  River  to  its 
"  source,  and  by  a  line  drawn  due  north  from  thence  to  the 
♦*  southern  boundary  of  our  Colony  of  Quebec,  to  the  north- 
"  ward,"  ^c. 

It  is  nevertheless  true,  that,  notwithstanding  the  opinion  of 
the  Law  Officers  of  the  Crown  of  11th  August,  1731,  declar- 
ing that  the  charter  of  Massachusetts  remained  in  force,  the 
British  Government  still  insisted  upon  the  operation  which 
certain  treaties  with  France  might  have  had  upon  the  char- 
ter ;  and  that  the  wish  and  hope  to  extend  the  boundary  of 
Nova  Scotia,  as  far  west  as  the  Penobscot,  had  never  been 
abandoned,  prior  to  the  final  relinquishment  of  that  preten- 
sion by  the  preliminary  Articles  of  Peace  of  1782.  It  is  fo- 
reign to  our  present  purpose  to  repeat  the  arguments  drawn 
from  the  express  terms  of  the  treaty  without  reference  to 
any  other  previous  acts,  or  to  advert  at  this  lime  to  the  proofs 
which  established  the  identity  of  the  boundaries  established 
by  the  treaty,  with  those  defined  by  the  charter  of  Massa- 
chusetts. It  is  sufficient,  with  a  view  to  the  evidence  de- 
rived from  maps,  to  have  shown  the  identity  of  the  treaty 
boundaries,  with  those  previously  established  by  the  commis- 
sions of  the  Governors  of  Nova  Scotia,  by  the  proclamation 
of  1763,  and  by  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774.  The  question  then 
occurs  :  Which  were  the  Highlands  declared  by  the  two  last 


1 
2 


■jS 


13 


mentioned  public  Acts  to  be  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
Province  of  Quebec  ? 

Independent  of  arguments  derived  from  other  sources,  the 
U.  States  produced,  and  laid  before  tiie  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands, all  the  maps  published  in  Great  Britain,  between  the 
years  17G3  and  1783,  on  which  the  southern  boundary  of 
the  Province  of  Quebec  is  laid  down,  and  which,  after  a 
diligent  search,  both  in  England  and  America,  could  be  ob- 
tained. Not  a  single  one  was  omitted  that  had  come  with- 
in the  knowledge  of  the  American  Government:  not  a  single 
one  of  an  opposite  character  has  ever  been  produced. 


The  maps  thus  collected  are  the  following,  viz  : 

1.  T.  Kitchin's  British  Dominions  in  North  America, 

&c.  Engraved  for  Dodsley's  Annual  Register,  of  1763 

2.  T.  Kitchin's  British  Dominions  in  North  America, 

&c.   Engraved  for  Capt.  John  Knox's  History  of 

the  War  in  America,  London, 1769 

3.  British  Empire  in  North  America,  &c.  Annexed  to 

Wynne's  History  of  the  British  Empire,  &c.  Lon- 
don  1770 

4.  J.  Palairet's  North   America,  with  improvements, 

&c.     By  L.  Delarochette.     London, 1765 

5.  Ridge's  British  Dominions  in  North  America,  &c. 

Annexed  to  a  Complete  History  of  the  Late  War, 

&c.  Dublin, 1766 

6.  Palairet's  North  and  South  America,  by  the  Ameri- 

can Traveller.      Annexed  to    "  The    American 
Traveller,"  &c.  London 1769 

7.  North  America  and  West  Indies,  with  the  opposite 

coasts,  &c.    [Jeffreys'  Atlas,]   London, 1775 

8.  North  America,  improved  from  Danville,  with  divi- 

B 


14 

sions  by   P.  Bell.     Engraved  by  R.  W.  Scale, 

London 1771 

0.  P.  Bell's  British  Dominions  in  North  America,  &c. 
1772.  Annexed  to  "  History  of  British  Dominions 
in  North  America,  &c.  in  fourteen  books."  Lon- 
don  1772 

10.  S.  Dunn's  British  Empire  in  North  America.    Lon- 

don,  1774 

11.  Danville's  North  America,  improved  with  English 

Surveys,    &c.      London, 1775 

12.  E.   Bovven  and   J.  Gibson's   North  America,  &c. 

London, 1775 

13.  Sayer  and  Bennett's  Province  of  Quebec,  &c.  Lon- 

don  177G 

14.  Seat  of  War  in  the  Northern  Colonies,  &.c.     An- 

nexed to   the  American  Military  Pocket  Atlas. 
London, 177G 

15.  North  America,  &;c.  corrected  from  the  materials 

of  Gov.  Pownall,  M.  P.,  London, 1777 

16.  Continent  of  America,  &c.  corrected  from  the  ma- 

terials of  Gov.   Pownall,  London, 1777 

17.  W.  Faden's  British  Colonies  in  North  America,. .   1777 

18.  W.  Faden's  North  America,  from  the  latest  disco- 

veries, 1778.     Engraved  for  "  Carver's  Travels," 

London 1778  &  1781 

47.  T.  Jeffreys'  Nova  Scotia,  &c.     London, 1775 

The  identity'  of  the  Highlands  which  form  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  with  those  which  are 
claimed  by  the  United  States  as  their  boundary,  will  appear 
evident  on  the  first  inspection  of  those  maps.  I  happen  to 
have  four  of  these  in  my  possession,  from  which  you  may 
judge  of  the  character  common  to  all :  these  are  Nos.  10, 
12,  13,  and  14,  of  the  preceding  list. 


1  ' 


15 


1775 
1770 


■m 


In  every  one  of  those  maps,  the  course  of  llio  line  from 
the  source  of  the  River  St.  Croix  is  northward  ;  in  every 
instance  that  line  crosses  the  Ilivin-  St.  John  and  terminates  at 
the  llighhinds,  in  vvhicii  the  rivers  that  fall  into  the  River  St. 
Lawrence  have  their  sources  ;  in  every  instance,  the  north- 
west angle  of  Nova  Scotia  is  laid  down  on  those  IIighlands,and 
where  the  north  line  terminates  ;  in  every  instance,  the  High- 
lands, from  that  point  to  the  ("onnecticut  River,  divide  the 
rivers  that  fall  into  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  from  the  tribu- 
tary streams  of  the  River  St.  John,  and  from  the  other  ri- 
vers that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

The  exhibition  of  such  undeniable  proofs  of  the  universal 
understanding  in  England,  from  the  date  of  the  proclamation  of 
1703  to  the  time  when  the  preliminary  Articles  of  Peace  were 
signed,  of  the  position  of  the  Highlands  defined  as  the  south- 
ern boundary  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  by  the  proclama- 
tion and  by  the  Quebec  act,  placed  in  a  rather  awkward  di- 
lemma the  British  agents.  They  must  either  deny,  in 
the  face  of  the  public  acts  of  Great  Britain,  the  iden- 
tity of  the  boundaries  defined  by  those  acts  with  those  de- 
clared by  the  treaty :  or  they  must,  notwithstanding  the 
conclusive  evidence  derived  from  the  maps,  affirm  that  the 
boundaries  prescribed  by  the  proclamation  and  the  Quebec 
act  were  not  correctly  delineated  6n  those  maps.  As  it  was 
equally  difficult  to  maintain  either  position,  the  agents,  em- 
ployed at  different  times  by  the  British  Government,  have 
differed  amongst  themselves  on  that  point.  You  may  in  that 
respect  consult  and  compare  the  arguments  used  by  the  Bri- 
tish agent  and  commissioner  under  the  joint  commission, 
with  those  contained  in  the  British  statements  laid  before  the 
King  of  the  Netherlands,  and  with  the  reasons  adduced  on 
that  particular  subject  in  the   report  of  Messrs.  Featheks* 

TONHAUGH    &    MUDGE. 


16 


It  was  probably,  at  least  partly,  in  order  to  avoid  the  in- 
ferences  that  might  be  drawn  from  more  modern  maps,  that 
the  British  Commissioners  who  negotiated  the  preliminary 
Articles  of  Peace,  brought  Mitchell's  map,  for  the  purpose  of 
its  being  used  jointly  by  the  Commissioners  in  the  course  of 
the  negotiations,  on  which,  as  it  was  published  in  1755,  the 
boundaries  prescribed  by  the  Proclamation  of  1703,  and  the 
Quebec  Act  of  1774,  could  not  be  delineated.  It  was  in  proof 
by  the  testimony  of  our  own  Commissioners  that  this  was 
the  map,  which  had  been  jointly  used  by  the  American  and 
British  negotiators  of  the  preliminaries  of  Peace  ;  and  it 
was  accordingly  recognised  as  such  by  the  Convention  of 
29th  September,  1827,  as  follows,  viz : 

"  The  map,  called  Mitchell's  Map,  by  which  the  framers 
"of  the  Treaty  of  1783  are  acknowledged  to  have  regulated 
"  their  joint  and  official  proceedings,  and  the  map  A,  which 
"  has  been  agreed  on  by  the  contracting  parties,  as  a  deline- 
"  ation  of  the  water  courses,  and  of  the  boundary  lines  in 
"  reference  to  the  said  water  courses  as  contended  for  by 
"  each  party,  respectively,  and  which  has  accordingly  been 
"  signed  by  the  above  named  Plenipotentiaries,  at  the  same 
"  time  with  this  Convention,  shall  be  annexed  to  the  state- 
"  ments  of  the  contracting  parties,  and  be  the  only  maps  that 
"  shall  be  considered  as  evidence,  mutually  acknowledged  by 
"  the  contracting  parties,  of  the  topography  of  the  country." 


Ih 


The   proposal    respecting   Mitchell's   map,   came    from 
British  Commissioners,  and  I  assented  to  it  with  the  follow- 


ing addition : 


'*  It  shall,  however,  be  lawful  for  either  party  to  annex 
"  to  its  respective  first  statements,  for  the  purposes  of  gene- 
"  ral  illustration,  any  of  the  maps,  surveys,  or  topographi- 


17 


id  the  in- 
aps,  that 
liminary 
Jrpose  of 
ourse  of 
755,  the 
and  the 
in  proof 
his  was 
can  and 
and  it 
ition  of 


ramers 
gulated 

which 
deline- 
iines  in 
for  by 
y  been 
!  same 

state- 
3s  that 
^ed  by 
ntrv." 

from 
ilJow- 


nnex 
;ene- 
aphi- 


m 

'■1 


**  cal  delineations,  which  were  filed  with  the  Commissioners 
"  under  the  fifth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  any  en- 
"  graved  map  heretofore  published,  and  also  a  transcript  of 
'*  the  above  mentioned  map  A,  or  of  a  section  thereof,  &c.'' 

The  engraved  dotted  boundary  lines  on  Mitchell's  map 
may  not  be  strictly  considered  as  evidences  of  topography  : 
but  they  are  evidence  at  least  of  the  manner  in  which  those 
boundaries  were  understood  in  the  year  1755,  when  the  map 
was  published.  And  this  is  of  some  importance,  inasmuch 
as  the  map  is  certified  to  have  been  undertaken  with  the  ap- 
probation of  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  to  be  chiefly  com- 
posed from  drafts,  charts,  &,c.,  transmitted  by  the  Governors 
of  the  several  colonies. 

According  to  that  map.  Nova  Scotia  and  New  England 
are  made  to  extend  as  far  north  as  the  southern  bank  of  the 
River  St.  Lawrence,  which,  according  to  the  pretensions  of 
Great  Britain,  was  deemed  to  be  the  boundary  between  her 
possessions  and  Canada.  The  boundary  between  Nova 
Scotia  and  New  England  is  delineated  by  an  engraved  dot- 
ted line,  from  the  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix  lo  its  north- 
erly source,  and  thence,  by  a  due  north  line  which  extends 
to  the  southern  bank  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence.  The  ter- 
ritory east  of  that  boundary  line  is  designated  in  large  capi- 
tal letters,  by  the  name  of  Nova  Scotia  or  Acadia :  and  the 
territory  west  of  the  same  line  is,  in  a  similar  manner,  de- 
signated as  New  England. 

In  order,  undoubtedly^  to  preserve,  against  Massachusetts, 
the  pretensions  of  the  Crown  to  the  territory  east  of  the  Pe- 
nobscot, a  similar  engraved  dotted  line  extends  along  that 
river  from  its  mouth  to  its  northeasternmost  source,  whence 
it  is,  by  a  short  eastwardly  line,  connected  with  the  due 


w 


\ 


Hi. 


18 


north  line  above  mentioned.  It  may  be  observed  that  it 
thereby  appears,  that  the  claim  of  the  Crown  to  the  territory 
east  of  the  Penobscot  extended  no  farther  north  than  the 
source  of  that  river,  and  that  the  whole  country  north  of  it, 
west  of  the  due  north  line,  embracing  the  whole  basin  of  the 
upper  branches  of  the  River  St.  John,  and  extending  as  far 
north  as  the  southern  bank  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  was, 
according  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  part  of  New-England. 

The  first  mentioned  dotted  line  is  precisely  the  same  as 
that  declared  by  the  treaty  to  be  the  boundary  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  with  the  single  exception, 
that  its  northerly  extremity,  or  north-west  angle  of  i"^  ova 
Scotia,  was  by  the  treaty  removed  due  south  to  the  high- 
lands described  in  that  instrument. 

I  will  hereafter  advert  more  particularly  to  the  topography 
of  Mitchell's  map.  But  some  of  its  general  features  must 
be  now  stated  in  order  to  understand  the  copy  of  it  which 
did  belong  to  Mr.  Jay. 

The  latitudes,  the  general  course  of  the  main  branch  of 
the  River  St.  John,  and  its  relative  position  to  the  River  St. 
Croix,  to  the  Penobscot,  and  to  the  tributary  streams  of  the 
River  St.  Lawrence,  are  laid  down  on  Mitchell's  map  with 
sufficient  correctness  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  point 
at  whiclf  the  due  north  line  (from  the  source  of  the  River  St. 
Croix)  crosses  the  River  St.  John  is  placed  on  that  map,  140 
miles  in  a  direct  line  (north  by  west)  from  the  mouth  of  the 
River  St.  Croix  ;  which  docs  not  differ  ten  miles  from  the 
fact.  F.'om  that  poin*.  the  course  of  the  main  branch,  which 
Mitchell  expressly  calls  "R.  St.  John,"  up  to  its  most 
western  source  is  about  west-south-west,  and  the  distance 
115  miles  in  a  straight  line.     This  agrees,  with  remarkable 


d  that  it 
territory 
tlian  the 
H'th  of  it, 
sin  of  the 
ng  as  far 
ice,  was, 
gland. 

same  as 
s^cen  the 
cception, 
)f  i^  ova 
le  high- 


)graphy 

3S  must 

which 


inch  of 
ver  St. 
of  the 
p  with 
J  point 
'er  St. 
p,  140 
jf  the 
n  the 
vhich 
most 
lance 
iable 


19 


correctness  in  both  respects,  with  the  actual  situation  of  the 
source  of  the  west  branch  of  map  A,  (Mr.  Featherston- 
haugh's  Mittaywoquam).  The  south  and  south-west 
branches  are  not  laid  down  by  Mitchell,  and  were  not 
known  before  the  surveys  executed  under  the  joint  com- 
mission of  1818. 

The  north-easternmost  branch  of  the  River  St.  John 
unites,  on  Mitchell's  map,  with  the  main  river  at  the  same 
point  where  this  is  intersected  by  the  due  north  line  above 
stated  ;  which  in  point  of  fact  is  erroneous.  This  branch, 
to  which  he  gives  no  name,  issues  in  his  map  from  his  lake 
Medousa.  This  lake  is  that  now  known  by  the  name  of 
Temiscouata,  and  the  river  issuing  from  it  is  the  Madawaska. 
For  you  will  find  that,  on  that  map,  the  north-western 
source  of  the  lake  Medousa  is  opposite  and  close  to  the 
source  of  the  Pistole  river,  which  empties  into  the  River  St. 
Lawrence,  a  short  distance  north-cast  from  the  source  of  the 
Wolves  River  (Riviere  le  Loup),  and  about  thirty-five  miles 
south-west  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  Metis.  All  which, 
as  will  appear  by  recurrence  to  the  map  A,  or  to  any  other 
modern  map,  is  the  precise  position  of  the  northern  extremity 
of  the  Temiscouata  lake. 

Mr.  Jay's  map,  which  is  now  exhibited  before  you,  is  the 
map  of  Mitchell  ;  and  a  red  line  is  delineated  upon  it, 
which  is  designated  through  its  whole  extent  as  being  Mr. 
Oswald's  liiie.  These  words  are  also  written  with  red  ink, 
and  were  at  once  recognised  by  Mr.  William  Jay,  as  being 
the  handwriting  of  his  father,  the  Hon.  John  Jay.  This  is 
the  only  line  or  coloring  on  the  map  which  is  known  to 
have  been  laid  down  by  Mr.  Jay.  The  map  itself  is  colored ; 
which  must  have  been  done  subsequently  to  the  year  1755, 


20 


the  maps  of  Mitchell  having  had  orighially  no  coloring 
whatever. 


In  this  map,  Nova  Scotia  is  designated  by  a  red  border, 
the  ground  not  being  colored.  New  England  is  colored 
yellow,  New  York  blue,  &c.,  and  Canada  green.  This  last 
circumstance  at  once  shews  for  what  purpose  the  map  was 
colored.  Canada  is  made  to  include  all  the  country  between 
the  lakes  and  the  Ohio.  The  Quebec  act  is  the  only  public 
act  which  ever  gave  that  extension  to  Canada.  And  accord- 
ingly, following  that  green  boundary  of  demarcation,  from 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  westward  to  the  Mississippi,  you 
will  find  that  it  does  agree,  in  every  respect,  with  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  province  of  Quebec,  as  prescribed 
by  that  act.  There  can  be,  therefore,  no  doubt  that  the 
map  was  thus  colored  during  or  subsequent  to  the  year  1774, 
and  very  little  that  the  whole  of  the  map  was  colored  at  the 
same  time.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  this  should  have 
been  done  by  Mr.  Jay  ;  and  the  whole  appears  to  have  been 
executed  by  an  artist  under  the  direction  of  the  map  vender. 
The  colored  line,  red  on  the  one  side  and  vellow  on  the 
other,  which,  in  conformity  with  the  line  claimed  by  the 
United  States  as  their  Eastern  boundary,  extends  from  the 
mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix  to  its  source,  and  thence  due 
north  to  the  southern  boundary  of  Canada,  appears  to  me  to 
be  nothing  more  than  the  above  mentioned  dotted  line  of 
Mitchell,  marked  with  the  colors  assigned  respectively  in 
this  map  to  Nova  Scotia  and  New  England.  It  appears 
therefore  to  me  that  this  map  came  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 
Jay  colored  as  it  is,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  red  line 
firist  above  mentioned,  and  designated  as  Mr.  Oswald's  line. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  discovering  what  are  the  bound- 
aries intended  to  be  represented  by  this  line. 


0;| 


^1 


coloring 

d  border, 
3  colored 
This  last 
map  was 
between 
ly  public 
I  accord- 
ion, from 
ippi,  you 
with  the 
escribed 
that  the 
ar  1774, 
d  at  the 
Id  have 
ve  been 
vender, 
on  the 
by  the 
om  the 
ice  due 
)  me  to 
line  of 
vely  in 
ppears 
of  Mr. 
3d  line 
's  line. 

lound- 


The  American  and  British  Commissioners  met  at  Paris 
and  commenced  their  negotiations  in  September,  1782,  Mr. 
Adams  and  Mr.  Laurens  were  not  yet  present,  when,  on 
the  8th  October,  1782,  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Jay  entered  in- 
to a  provisional  arrangement  with  Mr.  Oswald,  to  be  submitted 
however  to  his  Britannic  Majesty.  The  boundaries  defined  by 
that  agreement  are  in  the  following  words,  and  correspond 
precisely  with  the  line  designated  on  Mr.  Jay's  map,  as  Mr. 
Oswald's  line,  viz : 

"  The  said  States  are  bounded  north  by  a  line  to  be  drawn 
"  from  the  north-west  ande  of  Nova  Scotia  alonjj  the  hijjh- 
"  lands,  which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into 
"  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  At- 
*'  lanlic,  to  the  north-westernmost  head  of  Connecticut  Riv- 
"  er  ;  thence  down  along  the  middle  of  that  river  to  the  forty- 
"  fifth  degree  of  north  latitude,  and  thence  due  west  in  the 
"  latitude  forty-five  degrees  north  from  the  Equator,  to  the 
"  north- westernmost  side  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  or  Catar^ 
"  aquy  ;  thence  straight  to  the  Lake  Ni pissing,  and  thence 
"  straight  to  the  source  of  the  River  Mississippi ;  west, 
*'  by  a  line  to  be  drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  River  Mis^- 
"  sissippi,  to  where  the  said  line  shall  intersect  the  thirty-first 
**  degree  of  north  latitude  ;  south,  by  a  line  to  be  drawn  due 
"  east  from  the  termination  of  the  line  last  mentioned,  in  the 
*'  latitude  of  thirty-one  degrees  north  of  the  Equator,  to  the 
*'  middle  of  the  River  Apalachicola,  or  Catahouche  ;  thence 
"  along  the  middle  thereof  to  its  junction  with  the  Flint  River  ; 
"  thence  straight  to  the  head  of  St.  Mary's  River ;  thence 
"  down  along  the  middle  of  St.  Mary's  River  to  the  Atlantic 
*' Ocean;  and  east,  by  a  line  drawn  along  the  middle  of  St, 
"  John's  River  from  its  source  to  its  mouth  in  the  Bay  of  Funr 
"  dy  ;  comprehending  all  islands  within  twenty  leagues  of  any 
"  part  of  the  shores  of  the  United  States,  and  lying  between 
C 


\  : 


$ 


22 

lines  to  be  drawn  due  east  from  the  points  where  the 
aforesaid  boundaries  between  Nova  Scotia  on  the  one 
part,  and  East  Florida  on  the  other,  shall  respectively 
touch  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean." 

"Paris, 8th  October,  1782. 
"  A  true  copy  of  which  has  been  agreed  on  between  the 
American  (/ommissioners  and  me,  to  be  submitted  to  His 

Majesty's  consideration. 


"  (Signed) 


R.  OSWALD." 


"Alteration  to  be  made  in  the  treaty,  respecting  the  boun- 
"  daries  of  Nova  Scotia,  viz  : 

"  East,  the  true  line  between  which  and  the  United  States 
"  shall  be  settled  by  Commissioners,  as  soon  as  conveniently 
"  may  be  after  the  war." 

On  the  14th  of  October,  Dr.  Franklin  writes  to  Robert 
R.  LiviN(;.sT0N,  the  American  Secretary  of  State  :  "  We 
have  now  made  several  preliminary  propositions,  which  the 
English  Minister,  Mr.  Oswald,  has  approved  and  sent  to  his 
Court.     He  thinks  they  will  be  approved  there  ;  but  I  have 

some  doubts The   Articles  were  drawn   very 

fully  by  Mr.  Jay,  who  I  suppose  sends  you  a  copy  ;  if  not,  it 
will  go  by  the  next  opportunity," 

The  red  line  under  consideration  must  therefore  have  been 
drawn  by  Mr.  Jay,  in  October,  1782,  and  undoubtedly  with 
the  knowledge  and  assent  of  Mr.  Oswald.  A  copy  or  full 
description  of  the  line,  thus  proposed  by  the  American  Com- 
missioners, must  have  been  transmitted  by  Mr.  Oswald  to 
his  Government.  For,  unless  he  had  done  it,  it  would  have 
been  impossible  for  that  Government  to  understand  wh^t  was 
meant  by  the  words  in  the  agreement,  "  Me  soitrce  of  St. 
Johns  River"  which,  without  such  copy  or  explanation. 


1 


it 
mi 


bJ 

fr 
w| 


where  the 
on  the  one 
respectively 
5ean." 

'«r,  1782. 
)etween  the 
tted  to  His 

WALD." 

g  the  boun- 

•ited  States 
>nveniently 


o  Robert 
te :  "  We 
which  the 
sent  to  his 
but  I  have 
iwn  very 
;  if  not,  it 


lave  been 
^dly  with 
•y  or  full 
:an  Com- 

iVVALD  to 

uld  have 
i^hst  was 
e  of  St. 
anation, 


28 


it  would  naturally  have  understood  to  be,  the  source  of  the 
main  River  St.  John's  as  laid  down  in  Mitchell's  map. 

It  is  well  known  that  this  boundary  was  rejected  by  Great 
Britain.  That  this  was  in  some  degree  anticipated,  appears 
from  a  memorandum,  annexed  to  the  articles  of  agreement, 
which  offered  the  alternative  of  "  having  the  boundary  of 
*'  Nova  Scotia  settled  by  Commissioners  as  soon  as  conve- 
"  niently  may  be  after  the  war." 

The  proposal,  if  acceded  to,  would  have  given  nearly  the 
whole  of  Upper  Canada  to  the  United  States.  It  was  made 
in  compliance  with  the  resolutions  of  Congress  of  the  year 
1779,  repealed  indeed  by  those  of  1781 ;  which  last,  how- 
ever, still  referred  to  those  of  1779  as  expressive  of  the 
wishes  of  Congress. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  state  the  strictly  legitimate  inferen- 
ces resulting  from  the  map  as  it  now  lies  before  you,  with 
the  admission  that  Mr.  Oswald's  red  line,  as  it  is  called,  is 
the  only  delineation  made  upon  it  by  Mr.  Jay. 

It  now  clearly  appears  by  this  map,  that  the  source  of  the 
River  St.  John,  intended  and  proposed  by  the  American  Com- 
missioners, in  the  agreement  of  the  8th  October,  1782,  to  be 
the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  was  not  the  source  of 
the  main  river,  as  it  is  now  known  to  exist,  or  as  laid  down 
in  Mitchell's  map ;  but  the  northern  extremity  of  Mitchell's 
Medousa  Lake,  or  the  northern  source  of  a  then  name- 
less branch,  now  known  to  be  the  River  Madawaska ;  and 
also  that  the  Highlands,  described  in  the  said  contingent 
agreement,  extended  from  that  point,  or  in  other  words, 
from  the  Temiscouata  Portage  to  the  source  of  the  River 
Connecticut.     Therefore : 


d4 

Pirst .  This  is  a  complete  refutation  of  the  British  argu- 
ment, founded  on  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  the  boundary 
line  claimed  by  the  United  States  under  the  treaty  was  more 
disadvantageous  to  Great  Britain,  than  that  offered  in   the 
contingent  agreement  of  the  8th  of  October  ;  and  that  it  was 
therefore  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  British  Government,  hav- 
ing rejected  this,  could  have  assented  to  the  line  as  claimed 
under  the   treaty   by  the  United  States.     This   argument 
rested  on  a  misconception  of  the  source  of  the  River  St.  John, 
intended  and  proposed  by  the  American  Commissioners.     A 
single  glance  at    the  map  shows,  that  the  line  proposed  on 
the  8th  October,  1782,  included,  in  addition  to  the  territory 
claimed  by  the  United  States  under  the  treaty,  the  whole  of 
that  which  is  bounded  southwardly  by  the  sea  from  the 
mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix  to  the  mouth  of  the  River  St. 
John,  west  by  the  line  claimed  under  the  treaty  by  the  United 
States,  and  east  by  the  River  St.  John. 

Secondly.  It  was  insisted,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain) 
that  the  United  States,  having  themselves,  by  their  proposal, 
made  the  source  of  the  river  St.  John  the  north-west  angle 
of  Nova  Scotia,  and  having  defined  the  dividing  Highlands, 
as  extending  only  from  that  point  to  the  source  of  the  Con- 
necticut River,  this  definition  embraced  only  the  Highlands 
which  divided  the  tributaries  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence, 
from  those  of  the  Penobscot  and  of  the  Kennebec,  and  ex- 
cluded highlands  dividing  the  sources  of  the  several  branches 
of  the  River  St.  John,  from  those  of  rivers  emptying  them- 
selves into  the  River  St.  Lawrence.  And  it  was  suggested 
that  it  was,  with  that  view  of  the  subject  and  with  that  un- 
derstanding, that  the  term  Atlantic  Ocean  had  been  used,  in- 
stead of  the  word  Sea,  in  the  resolutions  of  Congress  of  1779j 
and  in  the  proposed  agreement  of  8tli  October,  1782. 


25 


itish  argu* 
3  boundary 

was  more 
red  in  the 
hat  it  was 
mentjhav- 
is  claimed 
argument 
r  St.  John, 
oners.  A 
^posed  on 
i  territory 

whole  of 
from  the 
River  St. 
le  United 


t  Britain* 
proposal  j 
3st  angle 
ghlands, 
the  Con- 
ighlands 
wrence, 
and  ex- 
ranches 
',  them- 
?gested 
hat  un- 
sed, in- 
•fl779j 


If  there  was  any  plausibility  in  this  argument,  it  was  ex- 
clusively derived  from  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  the 
St.  John,  contemplated  by  the  United  States,  was  that  of  the 
longest  branch  of  the  River  St.  John,  or  of  that  which  is 
laid  down  as  such  in  Mitchell's  map. 

Now  you  perceive  that  the  dividing  highlands  proposed 
by  the  American  Commissioners,  distinctly  delineated  by 
Mr.  Jay,  and  designated  by  him  as  Mr.  Oswald's  line,  com 
mence  at   the    northern  extremity  of  Mitchell's  Medousa 
Lake,  and  extend  thence  all  the  way  to  the  northernmost 
source  of  the  River  Connecticut.     That  distance,  according 
to   Mitchell's  map,  is  about  two  hundred  and  twenty  miles 
in  a  straight  line  ;  and,  according  to  that  map,  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  miles  of  that  distance  divide  the  rivers 
emptying  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  from  the 
sources  of  the  several  branches  of  the  River  St.  John  ;  and 
only  the  remaining  ninety-five  miles  divide  the  tributaries  of 
the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  of  the  Penobscot  and  of 
the  Kennebec.     It  is  therefore  clearly  established,  as  you 
see  it  on  the  map,  that  the  Highlands  described  in  the  pro- 
posed agreement  of  the  8th  October,  1782,  as  "  Highlands 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the 
River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic," 
are  and  were  clearly  understood  to  be  highlands  dividing 
for  more  than  one  half  of  their  length,  the  rivers  that  empty 
themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  the  branches 
of  the  River  St.  John ;  and  therefore,  that  the  River  St. 
John  was,  by  Congress,  and  by  the  Commissioners,  held  and 
understood  to  be  a  river  falling  into  the  Atlantic.     When  it  is 
considered  that,  with  that  fore-knowledge  of  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  term  Highlands,  (fee,  in  the  first  proposal  of 
the  American  Commissioners,  the  identical  words  used  in 
that  proposal,  as  defining  those  intended  highlands,  were 
transferred  to  and  used  in  the  definition  of  the  highlands 


PI 


II 


96 


described  by  the  treaty,  (along  the  said  highlands  which  di- 
vide those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  River  St. 
Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,) 
you  may  judge  of  the  soundness  of  the  British  argument  as 
applied  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty.  From  the  place  of  be- 
ginning, viz :  Irom  the  northern  extremity  of  Mitchell's 
Medousa  Lake  to  the  northernmost  source  of  the  River 
Connecticut,  the  line  delineated  by  Mr.  Jay,  in  conformity 
with  the  agreement  of  October  8th,  1782,  runs  along  the 
identical  highlands  claimed  under  the  treaty  by  the  United 
States  :  and  the  lines  prescribed  by  the  treaty  are  defined 
precisely  in  the  same  terms,  as  the  highlands  contemplated 
by  the  agreement  of  8th  October,  1782. 

Thirdly.  It  was  urged,  in  connection  with  the  lust  above 
stated  argument,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  River  St.  Croix  was 
declared  to  have  its  mouth  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  as  contra- 
distinguished from  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  in  which  the  River 
St.  Mary's  is  declared  to  have  its  mouth,  the  River  St.  John 
must  a  fortiori  be  held  to  fall  into  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  and  could 
not  therefore  be  considered  under  the  "•ms  of  the  treaty, 
as  one  of  the  rivers  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  Ana- 
logous expressions  are  used  in  the  agreement  of  October, 
1782,  in  reference  to  the  St.  John's  river,  the  only  difference 
consisting  in  the  substitution,  in  the  treaty,  of  the  River  St. 
Croix,  and  a  due  north  line,  for  St.  John's  River,  in  the  agree- 
ment of  "October,  1782.  This  will  appear  evident  by  com- 
paring with  the  words  used  in  the  treaty  those  of  the  agree- 
ment of  October,  1782,  which  are: 

"  Thence  down  along  the  middle  of  St.  Mary's  River,  to  the 
"  Atlantic  Ocean  ;  and  east,  by  a  line  to  be  drawn  along  the 
*'  middle  oiSt.  John's  River,  from  its  source  to  its  mouth  in  the 
*^Bay  of  Fundy :  comprehending  all  islands  within  twenty 


I 


:m 


;* 


87 


which  di- 
River  St. 
;  Ocean,) 
ument  as 
:e  of  be- 
^itcheJJ's 
le  River 

formity 
ong  the 
J  United 

defined 
niplated 


t  above 
>ix  was 
contra- 

Kiver 
>t.  John 
i  could 
treaty, 

Ana- 
;tober, 
3rence 
'er  St. 
igree- 
com- 
igree- 


othe 
?  the 
ntJw 
enty 


"leagues  of  any  part  of  the  shores  of  the  United  States,  and 
"  lying  between  lines  to  be  drawn  due  east  from  the  points 
"  where  the  aforesaid  boundaries  between  Nova  Scotia  on 
"  the  one  part,  and  East  Florida  on  the  other,  shall  respec- 
"  tively  touch  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean.'* 

The  only  difference  between  these  words  and  those  used 
in  the  treaty,  consists  in  the  substitution  above  stated.  But 
all  the  sentences  in  the  treaty  in  which  the  Bay  of  Fundy 
is  mentioned,  are  found  expressed  in  the  same  manner  and 
for  the  same  purpose,  in  the  agreement  of  October,  1782. 
The  River  St.  Croix  in  the  treaty,  the  River  St.  John  in  the 
agreement,  are  respectively  declared  to  have  their  mouth  in 
the  Bay  of  Fundy.  In  both  instruments,  the  southern  boundary 
is  declared  to  terminate  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  In  both,  the 
boundaries  between  (the  United  States  and)  Nova  Scotia  on 
the  one  part,  and  East  Florida  on  the  other,  are  said  re- 
spectively to  touch  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Atlantic 
Ocean. 

Since  it  is  now  fully  demonstrated  by  Mr.  Jav's  map,  that, 
notwithstanding  that  apparent  distinction  between  the  Atlan- 
tic Ocean  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the  River  St.  John  was 
clearly  intended  and  understood  in  the  agreement  of  Oc- 
tober, 1782,  to  be  a  river  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean ;  it 
is  impossible  that  the  same  identical  expressions  should  have 
been  preserved  in  the  treaty,  for  the  special  purpose  of  ex- 
cluding that  river  from  the  class  of  Atlantic  rivers,  and  of 
making  thereby  the  treaty  a  perfect  non-sense.  Such,  how- 
ever, was  the  pretended  inference,  and  such  the  frail  foun- 
dation, now  completely  subverted,  on  which  alone  it  rested. 

It  is  evident  that,  in  both  cases,  the  words  Bay  of  Fundy 
were  introduced,  only  for  the  purpose  of  defining,  with  pre- 


88 


cision  what  river  was  intended.  It  was  inserted  in  the 
agreement  of  October,  1782,  in  order  that  the  intended 
River  St.  John  might  not  be  confounded  with  another  River 
St.  John,  mentioned  in  the  Proclamation  of  1763,  which 
coming  from  the  north  falls  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 
It  was  inserted  again  in  the  Treaty  of  1783,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  defining  with  precision  the  locality  of  the  intended 
River  St.  Croix,  and  of  excluding  all  the  rivers  having  their 
mouth  west  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  which  might  bear  the 
same  name.  And  this  precaution  was  the  more  necessary, 
inasmuch  as  Governor  Pownall  had  previously  asserted,  in 
a  work  published  under  his  name,  and  often  appealed  to  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  there  were  several  rivers,  having 
their  mouths  west  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  which  were,  by  the 
French,  called  also  "River  St.  Croix."  It  is  well  known 
that  subsequently,  one  of  the  British  agents  asserted  that,  if 
it  had  not  been  otherwise  determined.  Great  Britain  might 
under  the  treaty  have  claimed  the  River  Penobscot,  as  being 
the  true  River  St.  Croix  intended  by  that  instrument. 


reui 

Sui 
line 


In  all  that  which  I  hav^  now  stated,  I  have  admitted,  that 
no  other  line  was  traced  by  Mr.  Jay  on  his  map,  than  the 
red  Hne  which  he  calls  Mr.  Oswald's  line.  This  admission 
has  been  made,  not  only  in  order  to  avoid  a  discussion  on 
debateable  ground,  but  also  because  I  believe  the  admission 
to  be  consistent  with  the  fact.  I  believe  so,  not  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  general  character  of  the  coloring  of  the  map, 
and  for  other  reasons  already  alleged,  but  also  because  Mr. 
Jay  did  not  correct  the  map  in  another  quarter,  so  as  to 
make  the  boundary  agree  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 
From  the  point  where  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  latitude  in- 
tersects the  River  St.  Lawrence,  the  treaty  substituted,  for 
that  which  is  called  Mr.  Oswald's  line,  the  boundary  line 
which,  as  you  well  know,  runs  through  the  River  St,  Law- 


M 


29 


1    in  (ho 

intended 

cr  River 
which 

wrence. 

10  pur- 
ntended 

ig  their 

ar  the 
:essarv. 
rted,  in 

to  on 
having 

by  the 
known 
that,  if 

might 

being 


i,  that 
n  the 
ission 
•n  on 
ssion 
n  ac- 
map, 
Mr. 
IS  to 
aty. 
in- 
fer 
line 
iw- 


rence  and  the  middle  of  the  Lakes  Ontario,  Erie,  Huron, 
Superior,  &c.  This  line  prescribed  by  the  treaty  is  not  de- 
lineated on  Mr.  Jay's  map. 

It  is,  however,  proper  to  state  that,  in  relation  to  our  North- 
Eastern  Boundary,  it  was  not  necessary  for  Mr.  Jay,  and 
indeed  it  was  impossible  for  him,  to  have  delineated  it  on  the 
map.  If  you  suppose,  indeed,  that  the  map  came  into  his 
hands  without  being  colored,  and  that  the  line,  red  on  one  side 
and  yellow  on  the  other,  which,  from  the  mouth  of  the  River 
St.  Croix  to  its  source,  and  thence  in  a  due  north  course  ex- 
tends to  the  southern  boundary  of  Canada,  did  not  exist  on 
the  map  when  he  received  it,  it  follows,  that  it  was  delineated 
by  himself:  and  this  supposition  would  conclusively  settle  the 
question  as  to  the  understanding  of  the  boundary  line  by  our 
Commissioners.  But  if,  as  I  believe,  that  line  had  been  pre- 
viously delineated,  Mr.  Jay  stood  in  relation  to  the  map  in 
the  same  situation  as  is  now  the  case  with  ourselves.  If 
we  were  asked  to  delineate  on  that  map,  as  it  now  stands 
before  you,  the  boundary  line  claimed  by  the  United  States, 
our  answer  would  be  :  We  cannot  do  it,  for  it  is  already 
done ;  that  red  and  yellow  line  is  precisely  that  which  we 
claim.  This  was  the  situation  of  Mr.  Jay.  The  treaty  line 
was  then  delineated  with  great  precision,  and  ho  had  in  that 
respect  nothing  to  alter  or  io  correct.  As  to  the  line  claimed 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  there  is  no  trace  of  ii  on  the  map, 

Exclusively  of  the  question  respecting  the  character  of 
the  highlands,  on  which  the  map  throws  no  light,  but  which 
I  believe  now  to  .  '^lefinitively  settled,  both  as  to  principle 
and  as  to  fact,  the  only  British  argument,  which  is  not  com- 
pletely demolished  by  Mr.  Jay's  map,  is  that  which  relates 
to  the  intersection  of  the  River  Ristigouche  by  the  due 


i'd 


30 

north  line,  as  claimed  by  the  United  States.  And  it  is  pro- 
per, when  arguing  upon  that  map,  to  point  out  the  only  mis- 
conception of  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1782,  with  re- 
gard to  the  topography  of  the  country,  which  may  in  any 
way  have  a  bearing  on  the  questions  respecting  our  North- 
Eastern  Boundary. 

It  is  well  known,  that  there  are  great  errors  in  the  longi- 
tude of  the  maps  of  that  epoch,  and  particularly  in  that  of 
Mitchell.  Had  that  error  been  uniform  throughout  the  map, 
its  only  effect  would  have  been  to  place  that  part  of  Ameri- 
ca sixty  or  one  hundred  miles  nearer  to  the  observatory  of 
Greenwich,  and  to  Europe  generally,  than  it  is  now  known 
to  be.  But  this  would  not  have  affected  the  relative  posi- 
tion of  the  various  places  in  America  delineated  on  the  map. 
The  error,  however,  is  not  uniform.  The  geographical  no- 
tions in  England  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  from  its  mouth 
upwards,  were  in  1755  exclusively  derived  from  French 
maps,  whilst  those  of  the  Atlantic  shores  were  chiefly  de- 
rived from  British  observations.  And  it  so  happened  that, 
although  the  errors  were  on  the  same  side,  the  difference 
was  greater,  by  nearly  one  degree  of  longitude,  on  the  River 
St.  Lawrence,  than  on  the  Atlantic  shores.  Hence  it  fol- 
lowed, that  the  position  of  the  several  short  rivers  that  fall 
into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  the  south,  and  of  the 
places  determined  in  reference  to  those  rivers,  was  placed 
on  the  maps  from  forty  to  fifty  miles  east  of  their  real  posi- 
tion, relatively  to  the  various  places  along  the  Atlantic 
shores,  or  whose  position  was  determined  in  reference  to 
those  places. 


The  position  ascribed  to  the  northern  extremity  of  Mitch- 
ell's Medousa  Lake  was  not  derived  from  any  survey  of  the 
River  St.  John  and  its  branches ;  but  it  was  known  and  is 


81 


pro- 
mis- 

lh  re- 
any 

lorth- 


designated  on  the  map  as  a  carriage  to  Canada.  It  was  an 
ancient  well  known  portage,  by  which  the  French  inhabit- 
ants of  the  Bay  des  Chaleurs  and  the  Miramichi  communi- 
cated with  the  River  St.  Lawrence.  Its  position  on  Mitch- 
ell's map  is  taken  from  the  French  maps  ;  and,  as  has 
already  been  stated,  that  position  is  quite  correct  in  refer- 
ence to  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  River  St. 
Lawrence.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  position  of  the 
River  St.  Croix,  on  that  map,  was  determined  in  relation  to 
places  along  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic,  including  the  Bay  of 
Fundy.  The  due  north  line  from  the  source  of  that  river 
had  never  been  run,  and  is  delineated  on  the  map  in  refer- 
ence to  the  position  of  that  source.  The  consequence  of 
that  difference  is,  that  the  due  north  line  which,  when  sur- 
veyed, was  found  to  terminate  at  the  source  of  the  River 
Metis,  is  placed  on  Mitchell's  map  about  forty  miles  west  of 
that  source  ;  and  that  the  course  of  the  Madawaska  River 
from  its  junction  with  the  St.  John  up  to  its  source,  is  repre- 
sented as  being  north,  instead  of  northwest,  and  almost  to 
coincide  with  the  due  north  line.  So  that,  that  source  of 
the  River  St.  John,  (that  is  to  say,  of  the  Madawaska,) 
which,  according  to  the  agreement  of  October,  1782,  was 
considered  as  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  is  on  the 
map  placed  only  five  miles  west  of  the  termination  of  the 
due  north  line,  whilst  in  fact  those  two  points  are  about 
forty-five  miles  apart. 

The  consequence  of  that  topographical  misconception,  on 
the  part  of  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  firsts 
that  it  made  the  line,  agreed  to  according  to  our  understand- 
ing of  it,  to  appear  much  less  disadvantageous  to  Great 
Britain,  with  respect  to  the  communication  between  her 
provinces,  than  in  real'ty  it  turned  out  to  be ;  secondly,  that 
the  negotiators  entertained  no  suspicion,  that  the  due  north 


8d 


line  could  possibly  be  intersected  by  the  branches  of  any 
river  emptying  itself  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 


1  am  clearly  of  opinion  that)  in  a  general  geographical 
sense,  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  are 
bays  or  inlets  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean ;   that,  in  the  same 
general  geographical  view,  the  River  St.  Lawrence  is  itself 
an  Atlantic  river  ;  and  that,  unless  excluded  specially  or  by  a 
necessary  implication,  they  must  under  the  treaty  be  con- 
sidered as  such.     The  treaty  c^nlomplates  but  two  classes 
of  rivers  to  be  divided  from  each  other  ;  those  emptying  into 
the  River  St.  Lawrence,  and  those  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic 
Ocean.    Whence  it  appears  to  me  conclusively  to  follow, 
that  the  rivers  which  do  not  fall  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence, 
but  into  either  the  Bay  of  Fundy  or  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law* 
rence,  both  which  are  bays  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  are,  by  the- 
terms  of  the  treaty,  clearly  included  within  the  class  of 
rivers  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean.     The  point,  there- 
fore, where  the  due  north  line  intersects  the  highland  which 
divides  a  river,  that  empties  itself  into  the  River  St.  Law* 
rence  from  a  branch  of  the  River  Ristigouche  (which  falls 
into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence),  is  the  true  north-west  angle 
of  Nova  Scotia  described  by  the  treaty.     The  supposition 
that  the  north-west  angle  is  to  be  found  on  the  highland 
which  divides  the  waters  of  the  Ristigouche  from  those  of 
the  River  St.  John,  implies  the  supposition  that  the  Gulf  of 
St.  Lawrence  and  the  river  of  the  same  name  were,  by  the 
negotiators,  considered  as  identic. 

At  the  same  time  J  am  ready  to  admit,  that  the  negotiators 
of  the  treaty  of  1788  had  no  expectation  that  the  boundary, 
as  described  by  them,  would  throw  into  the  United  States 
some  of  the  head  branches  of  the  Ristigouche*     I  think  it 


any 


33 


extremely  probable  that  had  they  been  aware  of  that  cir- 
cumstance, they  would  have  modified  the  line,  so  far  at  least 
as  to  make  the  ridge  which  divides  the  Ristigouche  from  the 
St.  John  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries,  till  it  met 
the  ridge  which  divides  the  waters  of  the  St.  John  from 
those  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence.  Seeing,  indeed,  that 
according  to  Mitchell's  map  they  must  have  believed  the 
due  north  line  and  the  River  Madawaska  to  be  almost  identic ; 
it  is  not  improbable,  considering  the  conciliatory  dispositions 
which  animated  the  framers  of  the  treaty,  that  they  might, 
had  they  known  the  true  topography  of  that  part  of  the 
country,  have  secured  the  ordinary  communication  between 
the  British  Provinces  by  substituting  the  River  Madawaska, 
instead  of  the  continued  north  line,  as  an  equitable  boundary. 
These  considerations,  though  not  affecting  the  question  of 
right,  must  have  had  their  due  weight  on  negotiations  having 
for  object  an  amicable  compromise. 


Although  the  objections  made  against  the  boundary  line 
claimed  by  the  United  States  had,  in  my  humble  opinion, 
been  already  refuted,  and  although  the  most  plausible  of 
them  are  altogether  disproved  by  the  map  of  Mr.  Jay,  yet 
they  may  generally  be  considered  to  have  been  debateable 
questions.  If  any  of  them  had  proved  conclusive,  the  only 
inference  would  have  been  that  the  treaty  could  not  be 
literally  executed,  and  that  a  compromise  must  be  made. 
This  is  what  actually  took  place  in  reference  to  another 
provision  of  the  treaty,  viz.  the  line  from  the  lake  of  the 
woods  to  the  Mississippi,  which  could  not  be  executed  ac- 
cording to  the  letter  of  the  treaty. 


It  is  a  matter  of  deep  regret  that  instead  of  only  raising 
objections  against  the  line  claimed  by  the  United  States,  an 
attempt  should  have  been  made,  in  behalf  of  Great  Britain, 


lii 


!i: 


34 


to  advance  a  claim  of  a  most  extraordinary  and  startling 
nature.  It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  I  approach  this 
branch  of  the  subject,  which  I  would  have  wished  to  be 
buried  in  oblivion,  had  it  not  been  lately  renewed  by  the 
discovery  of  a  map  with  a  line  of  demarcation  ascribed  to 
Dr.  Franklin. 

The  treaty  declares  the  East  Boundary  of  the  United 
States  to  be,  a  line  drawn  from  the  source  of  the  River  St. 
Croix  directly  north  to  the  highlands,  which  divide  the  rivers 
that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  from  that  which  falls  into 
the  River  St.  Lawrence.  And,  from  that  point,  which  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  Northwest  angle  of  nova  Scotia,  the  boun- 
dary between  the  two  countries  is  declared  to  be,  "  along 
the  highlands  which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  them- 
selves into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean,  to  the  north  westernmost  head  of  Con- 
necticut River." 


the 


|t!     t 


';w! 


It  was  asserted  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  described  by  the  treaty, 
was  to  be  found  at  a  certain  point  situate  on  the  due  north 
line,  at  or  near  Mars  Hill,  about  forty  miles  north  from  the 
source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  (or,  according  to  Messrs. 
Featherstonhaugh  and  Mudge,  at  another  hill  a  few  miles 
farther  north.)  Mars  Hill  is  at  least  one  hundred  miles  dis- 
tant in  every  direction,  from  any  of  the  sources  of  any  of 
the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Law- 
rence ;  and  it  divides  no  other  rivers,  but  Goosequick  River, 
from  the  River  Presque  Isle ;  both  which  are  tributary 
streams  of  the  River  St.  John,  into  which  they  empty  them- 
selves, a  few  miles  east  of  the  said  due  north  line. 

It  was  therefore  contended  that  a  point,  described  by  the 


35 


treaty  as  being  on  the  highlands  which  divide  the  rivers 
whioh  fall  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  • 
into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  may  be  placed  on  a  highland,  which 
does  not  divide  from  each  other  the  rivers  thus  described  by 
the  treaty,  which  is  one  hundred  miles  distant  from  the  wa- 
ters of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  and  which  divides  no  other 
rivers  but  two  small  branches  of  one  and  the  same  river, 
viz :  the  River  St.  John,  which  falls  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
and  was  considered  by  Great  Britain  as  falling  neither  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  or  the  River  St.  Lawrence. 


The  boundary  line  claimed  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
from  that  spot  to  the  sources  of  the  River  Chaudiere,  which 
falls  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  (a  distance  of  about  one 
hundred  and  fifteen  miles  in  a  straight  line,)  instead  of  di- 
viding, in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  rivers 
falling  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  rivers  falling  into 
the  Atlantic,  divides  no  other  rivers  than  the  various  branch- 
es of  the  Penobscot  from  the  branches  of  the  River  St.  John. 
For  the  whole  of  that  distance,  that  line  divides  no  other 
rivers  than  rivers  falling,  as  the  United  States  affirm,  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean,  or,  according  to  the  suggestions  of  the 
British  agents,  no  other  rivers  than  rivers  falling  into  the 
Bay  of  Fundy,  from  rivers  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 
It  is  only  from  the  source  of  the  River  Chaudiere,  at  a  spot 
called  Metjarmette  Portage,  that  the  line  claimed  by  Great 
Britain,  coinciding  there  with  the  American  line,  divides 
the  sources  of  rivers  that  fall  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence, 
from  the  sources  of  several  tributary  streams  of  the  Rivers 
Penobscot,  Kennebec,  and  Connecticut.  It  is  only  for  that 
portion  of  the  boundary,  or  about  eighty  miles  in  a  straight 
line,  that  the  British  line  did  fulfil  the  conditions  of  the 
treaty. 


'I  ii 


iii  >  J 


If'ii' 


36 


In  order  to  sustain  that  claim  it  was  insisted  that,  altiiough 
the  highlands  from  Mars  hill  to  the  sources  of  the  Chaudiere 
do  not  divide  the  rivers  described  and  contemplated  by  the 
treaty,  they  are  a  continuation  of,  or  connected  with,  the 
highlands  which,  from  the  source  of  the  Chaudiere  to  that 
of  the  Connecticut,  divide  the  rivers  contemplated  and  pre- 
scribed by  the  treaty.  And  it  was  affirmed  that  it  was  not 
necessary,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  that  the 
boundary  should,  through  its  whole  extent,  be  along  high- 
lands which  actually  divide  rivers  emptying  themselves  into 
the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic 
Ocean.  On  that  point  it  is  sufficient  to  recur  to  the  terms 
of  the  treaty. 

The  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  is  there  expressly 
declared  to  be  on  the  highlands  themselves,  and  not  on  the 
continuation  of  the  highlands  which  actually  divide  the 
rivers  mentioned  in  the  treaty.  And  the  boundary  is  de- 
clared to  he  from  that  northwest  angle  along  the  highlands 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the 
River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  to  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut  River. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  devise  words  more  clear  and  precise, 
than  the  words  from,  along,  and  to,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
claring that  the  boundary  must,  through  its  whole  extent, 
from  the  place  of  beginning,  or  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia,  to  the  source  of  the  Connecticut,  be  on  the  highlands 
described  by  the  treaty. 

It  was  also  broadly  asserted,  that  the  British  line  does  di' 
vide,  as  directed  by  the  treaty,  the  rivers  which  empty  them- 
selves into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into 
the  Atlantic  Ocean.  The  term  to  divide  was  made  to  mean 
to  lie  between.    The  line,  that  was  claimed  by  Great  Britain, 


87 


divides  the  rivers  that  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  from  those 
which  empty  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  Rhine  divides  France  from  Poland,  and 
as  the  Hudson  River  divides  New-York  from  Pennsylvania. 


As  a  subsidiary  argument,  whilst  it  was  contended,  in  op- 
position to  the  American  line,  that  the  negotiators  were  en- 
tirely unacquainted  with  the  topography  of  the  country,  it 
was  asserted  that  they  did,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  in- 
tend to  describe  the  north-western  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  and 
the  boundary  line  claimed  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.  Now, 
vou  see,  that  the  course  of  the  main  River  St.  John  from  the 
due  north  line  to  its  western  source  and  the  position  of  that 
river  in  relation  to  the  sources  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  of  the 
Penobscot,  and  of  the  tributary  streams  of  the  River  St.  Law- 
rence, between  the  Temiscouata  Portage  and  heads  of  Con- 
necticut River,  are  laid  down  with  remarkable  correctness 
on  Mitchell's  map ;  and,  I  may  add,  on  all  the  subsequent 
English  maps  published  before  the  year  1782. 

It  is  manifest  by  Mitchell's  map  and  those  of  a  subse- 
quent date,  and  it  was  therefore  perfectly  well  known  to  the 
negotiators,  that  no  point  of  the  due  north  line,  south  of 
the  River  St.  John,  did  or  could  divide,  from  each  other, 
anv  rivers  whatever  but  some  branches  of  the  said  River 
St.  John  ;— that  the  source  of  the  River  Chaudiere  was 
about  120  miles  distant,  and  in  a  westwardly  course  from 
any  such  point  of  the  due  north  line  ;  that  no  line  whatever, 
drawn  from  any  such  point  of  the  said  due  north  line  south 
of  the  River  St.  John,  and  keeping  south  of  that  river,  could, 
between  that  point  and  the  source  of  the  River  Chaudiere, 
(or  of  any  other  tributary  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence,)  divide 
from  any  river  whatever,  any  of  the  rivers  emptying  them- 

E 


88 

gelves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence ; — and  that  such  line* 
through  its  whole  length  of  120  miles,  could  divide  no  other 
rivers  whatever  but  the  southern  branches  of  the  River  St. 
John,  from  the  branches  of  the  Rivers  St.  Croix,  Penobscot, 
and  Kennebec. 

With  those  facts  before  them,  if  the  negotiators  of  the 
treaty  had  intended  that  the  north-west  angle  of  Nova  Scotia 
should  be  placed  on  highlands  situated  south  of  the  River 
St.  John,  or  on  any  point  of  the  due  north  line  lying  between 
and  dividing  only  tributary  streams  of  the  River  St.  John,  it 
is  impossible  that  they  should  have  described  that  angle  as 
being  on  highlands  dividing  the  waters  of  the  River  St.  Law- 
rence from  rivers  falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 


It  is  equally  impossible  that,  if  the  negotiators  intended  that 
the  boundary,  from  the  due  north  line  to  the  sources  of  the 
Chaudiere,  should,  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles,  either 
divide  the  sources  of  the  Penobscot  and  of  the  Kennebec 
from  those  of  the  St.  John,  or  should,  without  dividing  any 
rivers,  only  intersect  branches  of  the  St.  John,  they  should 
have  described  such  a  boundary,  as  being  on  highlands  di- 
viding the  waters  of  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  the  rivers 
falling  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 


What  renders  the  supposition,  that  those  ministers  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  terms  so  contradictory  of  the  intentions 
gratuitously  ascribed  to  them,  still  more  untenable,  is,  that 
there  would  not  have  been  the  slightest  difficulty,  with  Mitch- 
ell's map  before  them,  in  defining  with  the  utmost  precision, 
if  so  intended,  the  boundary  line  as  now  contended  for  by 
Great  Britain. 


|l;l. 


Had  the  intention  been,  as  was  affirmed,  to  assign  to  Great 


89 


-h  line* 
[o  other 
rer  St. 
[obscot, 


of  the 
Scotia 
River 
'tween 
^ohn,  it 
igie  as 
.  Law- 


dthat 
of  the 

either 
inebec 
gany 
ihouJd 
ds  di- 
■ivers 


ex- 
iions 
that 
tch- 
ion, 

by 


3at 


Britain  the  whole  of  the  basin  of  the  River  St.  John,  there 
would  not  have  been  any  occasion,  either  to  refer  to  the 
north-west  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  or  that  any  part  of  the 
boundary  should  have  been  a  line  drawn  due  north  from  the 
source  of  the  River  St.  Croix.  In  that  case,  the  boundary 
would,  by  an  ordinary  conveyancer  in  possession  of  Mitch- 
ell's map,  and  of  the  intentions  of  the  parties,  have  been 
described  in  the  following  words,  or  in  others  as  explicit,  and 
of  the  same  import,  viz  : 

"  From  the  source  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  along  the  high- 
"  lands  which  divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  either 
"  into  the  River  St.  John,  or  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence, 
"  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  west  of  the 
**  mouth  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  to  the  northwesternmost 

"  head  of  Connecticut  River * . .  East  by  a  line 

"  drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  from  its 
"  mouth  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy  to  its  source." 

Had  it  been  intended,  though  for  what  object,  with  the 
intentions  ascribed  to  the  negotiators,  is  altogether  unintelli- 
gible, that  a  due  north  line  drawn  from  the  source  of  the 
River  St.  Croix,  should  form  a  part  of  the  boundary,  a  slight 
alteration  in  the  phraseology,  would,  with  equal  facility,  have 
effected  that  purpose. 

It  is  well  known  that  this  extraordinary  pretension  was 
suggested  by  the  British  Agent,  under  the  Joint  Commission 
of  1818,  who,  having  also  been  the  Agent  before  the  Joint 
Commission  of  1798,  had  then  expressly  declared  that  the 
north  line  must  of  necessity  cross  the  River  St.  John,  but 
that,  if  it  was  drawn  from  the  source  of  the  western  branch 
of  the  Schoodiac,  it  would  cross  that  river  in  a  part  of  it 
almost  at  the  foot  of  the  highlands.     Tiiat  Agent,  one  of  the 


m 


40 


!'      I 


IM| 


liil 


'  I 


In 


HI'  I! 


first  settlers  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick,  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  was,  as  late  as  the  year  1798, 
of  opinion  that  the  highlands  of  the  treaty  lay  north  of  the 
River  St.  John,  and  that  the  north  line,  in  order  to  meet 
thenn,  must  cross  that  river.  Sir  Robert  Liston,  then  his 
Britannic  Majesty's  Minister  to  the  United  States,  construed 
the  treaty  in  the  same  manner. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  of  1818  were 
not  published,  and  excited  but  little  sensation  at  the  time. 
It  was  only  generally  known  that  the  Commissioners  had 
not  agreed,  and  that  the  reference  to  a  foreign  power,  pro- 
vided by  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  had  become  necessary.  I 
was,  for  the  first  time,  made  acquainted  with  the  claim  set 
up  by  Great  Britain  in  the  spring  of  the  year  1826,  when 
ippointed  Minister  to  the  British  Court. 

Wherever  this  pretension  was  known,  it  excited  a  general 
surprise  and  indignation.  It  was  no  longer  an  attempted 
construction  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty.  It  was  viewed 
generally  in  America  as  being,  not  an  interpretation,  but  a 
direct  and  obvious  violation  of  the  express  terms  of  the 
treaty. 

You  will  find,  by  the  official  documents  deposited  in  your 
library,  with  what  pertinacity  the  claim  was  sustained  by 
tlie  British  Agents :  and  you  know  that  the  extraordinary 
arguments  to  the  same  effect,  contained  in  the  Report  of 
Messrs.  Fratherstonhaugh  and  Mudge,  were  laid  officially 
before  Parliament.  Subsequently  a  better  spirit  was  evinced  ; 
and  this  was  followed  by  the  conciliatory  mission  of  Lord 
AsHBURTON.  That  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  should 
ever  have  countenanced  this  pretended  interpretation,  has 


evei 

me.  I 

on 

riei 

or 

five 


roughly 
ir  1798, 
1  of  the 
o  meet 
len  his 
nstrued 


41 


ever  been,  and  is  to  this  day,  altogether  incomprehensible  to 
me.  In  the  discussion  of  this  pretension,  the  only  difficulty 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  was  that  which  was  expe- 
rienced in  an  attempt  to  demonstrate  a  self-evident  axiom, 
or  to  refute  such  an  assertion  as  that  "  two  and  two  make 
five." 


I  II 


were 
3  time, 
rs  had 
r,  pro- 
fry.  I 
nn  set 
when 


eneral 
mpted 
iewed 
but  a 
f  the 


your 
d  by 
nary 
rt  of 
iaJJy 
2ed  ; 
jord 
ouid 
has 


But  this  attempt  was  a  fatal  mistake,  which  shook  the 
confidence  justly  due  to  the  British  Government  for  its 
fidelity  in  fulfilling  its  engagements,  and  which,  by  the  ex- 
citement it  produced  and  the  incidents  following  from  it, 
produced  dangerous  collisions,  and  prevented  during  a  period 
of  twelve  years  any  approximation  towards  a  conciliatory 
compromise.  And  now  that  such  a  compromise  has  happily 
been  efffjcted,  the  attempts  lately  made  to  renew  the  dis- 
cussion on  that  particular  subject  can  have,  and  have  had,  no 
other  effect  but  to  irritate. 

It  appears  that  Count  De  Vergennes  did,  on  the  5th  of 
December,  1782,  send  some  one  map  to  Dr.  FRANKLm,  with 
a  request  that  he  would  delineate  on  it  the  limits  of  the 
United  States,  as  settled  in  tho  preliminaries  between  the 
British  and  American  Plenipotentiaries ;  and  that  the  map 
was  returned  the  ensuing  day  by  Dr.  Franklin,  with  a  note, 
stating  that  he  had  marked  with  a  strong  red  line  the  limits 
aforesaid.  It  further  appears,  that  in  the  geographical  de- 
partment of  the  French  Archives  of  Foreign  Aftiiirs,  which 
contains  60,000  maps,  there  is  one  of  North  America  by 
Danville,  dated  174G,  in  size  about  eighteen  inches  square, 
on  which  is  drawn  a  strong  red  line  throughout  the  entire 
boundary  of  the  United  States  ;  which  line  runs  wholly  south 
of  the  St.  John,  and  between  the  head  waters  of  that  river 
and  those  of  the  Penobscot  and  Kennebec :  it  is  the  line 


T 

it; 

( 

1 

1 

■     \ 
1 

1 

1 

1    , 

• 

1  ^ 

1 

if   ,1 

1 

II 


jii 


42 


contended  for  by  Great  Britain,  except  that  it  concedes  more 
than  is  claimed :  it  leaves  on  the  British  side  all  the  streams 
which  flow  into  the  St.  John  between  the  source  of  the  St. 
Croix  and  Mars  Hill :  from  the  St.  Croix  to  the,  Canadian 
Highlands  it  is  intended  to  exclude  all  the  waters  running 
into  the  St.  John.  There  is  no  other  coloring  on  any  other 
part  of  the  map. 

There  is  no  endorsement  or  proof  of  any  kind  whatever 
that  this  is  the  map  on  which  Dr.  Franklin  had  delineated 
the  limits  as  above  stated.  But  admitting  for  a  moment  that 
this  was  the  case,  what  does  it  prove? 

No  line  of  demarcation  traced  on  a  map  can  alter  the 
express  terms  of  a  treaty,  or  change  the  locality  of  a  natural 
object.  No  red  or  other  line,  no  legerdemain  can  transfer 
Mars  Hill  to  the  Highlands,  in  which  the  rivers  that  empty 
themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  have  their  sources, 
or  make  the  White  Mountains  of  New  Hampshire  be  on  the 
ridge  which  divides  the  waters  of  the  River  Connecticut 
from  those  of  the  Hudson.  If  the  fact  was  established,  it 
could  only  prove  that  a  highly  gifted  man  had  once  com- 
mitted a  great  blunder.  This  is:  not  altogether  impossible  ; 
but  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is  so  extremely 
improbable,  and  the  presumption  deduced  from  the  fact,  that 
there  does  exist  in  the  French  Archives  a  map  of  America 
with  a  red  line,  is  so  weak,  that  the  supposition  is  altogether 
inadmissible. 


6o\ 

laij 
in^ 
ani 
utt 


It  may  be,  that  the  features  of  physical  geography  are 
less  attended  to,  and  the  terms  used  in  reference  to  it,  less 
familiar  to  the  mass  of  the  English  people  than  to  Americans. 
But  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  American  farmer  who 


ili 


dos  more 
streams 
I  the  St. 
'anadian 
running 
ly  other 


hatever 
ineated 
ent  that 


ter  the 
natural 
ransfer 
empty 
3urces, 
on  the 
3cticut 
hed,  it 
!  com- 
sible ; 
3me]y 
t,  that 
lerica 
ether 


are 

less 
!ans. 
who 


docs  not  know  that,  by  the  terms  hciu^ht  of  land,  hi^hlamh, 
which  divide,  or,  dividing  rid^^c,  thiit  rid^'c,  or  those  high- 
lands, are  always  meant,  in  which  tlic  divided  rivers,  Hew- 
ing in  opposite  directions,  have  tiioir  souroes.     Unless  direct 
and  positive  proof  to  the  contrary  shall  be  adduced,  it  is 
utterly  impossible  to  admit  that,  within  six  days  after  hav- 
ing signed  the  treaty.  Dr.  Frankliv  should  have  substituted 
for  a  point  (the  north-west  angle  of  Nova  Scotia)  and  for  a 
line,  declared  expressly  by  the  treaty  to  be   on  highlands 
dividing  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves  into  the  River  8t. 
Lawrence  from  those  which  fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  a 
point  and  a  line,  which  are  on  highlands  which  divide  only 
the  waters  of  the  River  St.  John  from  those  of  the  River  St. 
Croix,  and  the  Penobscot ;  and  which  point  and  line  arc  one 
hundred  miles  distant  from  the  highlands,  in  which  rivers 
emptying  themselves  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  have  their 
sources.     It  is,  indeed,  required  from  us  to  believe,  that  he 
had  annihilated  the  due  north  line  prescribed  by  the  treaty, 
and  substituted  for  it  the  crooked  westwardly  line  which  di- 
vides the  Penobscot  from  the  River  St.  John.     It  was  not 
for  the  purpose  of  renewing  the  discussion,  but  in  reference 
to  the  line  thus  ascribed  to  Dr.  Franklin,  that  I  have  pointed 
out  the  proofs  of  the  impossibiUty  that  the  negotiators  of  the 
Treaty  of  1782  could  have  intended  the  boundary  claimed 
by  Great  Britain ;  and,  therefore,  of  the  absurdity  of  the 
supposition  which  ascribes  to  Dr.  Franklin  the  red  line  in 
question. 

I  will  go  still  farther :  even  if  it  was  proved  that  the 
map  found  in  the  French  Archives  was  that  returned  by  Dr. 
Franklin  to  Count  De  Vergennes,  it  would  be  far  more  pro- 
bable that  Dr.  Franklin,  after  having  traced  on  the  map  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  United  States,  left  to  some  subor- 
dinate person  in  his  office  the  care  of  tracing  the  residue, 


n 


44 


and  returned  to  Count  De  Vergennes  the  map,  without  hav- 
ing compared  it,  than  that  he  should  have  traced  as  the 
North-Eastern  Boundary  prescribed  by  the  treaty  the  red 
line  ascribed  to  him. 


<!  ■    '1 


ir,i- 


The  north-eastern  and  northern  boundaries  between  the 
United  States  and  the  British  Provinces  were  a  matter  of 
profound  indifference  to  France,  and  to  Count  De  Vergevnes. 
But  France,  pressed  by  Spain,  which,  as  is  well  known, 
wanted  to  extend  the  boundaries  of  Florida  as  far  north  as 
possible,  was  desirous  that  the  United  States  should  yield  to 
those  wishes  to  a  certain  extent.  It  was  the  southern  boun- 
daries of  the  United  States,  as  described  in  the  preliminary 
articles  of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  and  that  alone,  which 
Count  De  Vebgennes  wished  to  ascertain.  Of  this  Dr 
Franklin  was  fully  aware,  and  he  may  have  drawn,  himself, 
that  part  of  the  boundary.  If,  being  then  70  years  old,  and 
with  an  impaired  eye-sight,  he  left  to  a  clerk  the  care  of 
tracing  the  residue  on  that  small  map,  and  did  not  examine 
this  critically,  it  is  nothing  more  than  what  every  man,  who 
superintends  important  and  extensive  concerns,  is  perpetually 
obliged  to  do.  The  transcripts  of  the  evidence  respecting 
the  North-Eastern  Boundary,  communicated  to  the  British 
Government,  and  laid  before  the  arbiter,  were  not  and  could 
not  yet  have  been  compared  with  the  originals,  either  by  the 
Secretary  of  State,  or  by  the  Agents  of  the  United  States, 
who  collected  the  evidence,  and  superintended  the  whole 
subject. 

In  order  to  corroborate  the  supposition,  that  the  red  line 
on  the  map  in  the  French  Archives  had  been  delineated  by 
Dr.  Franklin,  some  French  maps  published  in  1783  and  1784 
have  been  produced,  on  which  the  boundary  is  said  to  be 
laid  in  conformity  with  the  British  pretension.    That  some 


45 


hout  hav- 
d  as  the 
y  the  red 


ween  the 
matter  of 

RGEIVNES. 

known, 
north  as 
I  yield  to 
!rn  boun- 
iliminary 
e,  which 
this  Dr 
,  himself, 
old,  and 
care  of 
examine 
lan,  who 
petually 
specting 
British 
id  could 
'  by  the 
States, 
whole 


such  maps  do  exist  is  true  ;  but  I  cannot  argue  on  maps 
wliich  I  have  not  seen,  nor  form  a  definitive  judgment  from 
the  reported  debates  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  of 
the  respective  character  and  authenticity  of  the  dotted  and 
colored  lines  therein  referred  to.  I  have  seen  but  two 
French  maps  published  in  those  years,  on  which  the  bound- 
ary of  the  United  States  is  attempted  to  be  traced ;  one, 
which  was  in  the  Congress  library,  is  a  map  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  by  Brion  do  la  Tour,  Paris,  1784;  and, 
on  this,  the  boundary  is  traced  as  claimed  by  the  United 
States.  The  other  belongs  to  this  Society,  and  was,  for  the 
first  time,  communicated  to  me  in  the  year  1840,  by  Mr. 
FoLsoM.  It  is  a  reprint  of  an  old  map  of  Guillaumo  Del' 
Isle,  originally  published  in  1703,  revised  in  1783,  Paris,  by 
Dezauche,  successor  of  Del'Isle  &  Buache.  On  this  map, 
there  is  a  colored  line  of  the  United  States'  boundary,  in 
conformity  with  the  British  pretension.  It  is  even  in  that 
respe  :  incorrect,  as  it  crosses  Lake  Champlain  in  forty-four 
degrees  of  latitude.  But  it  is  remarkable,  that  by  comparing 
it  with  the  original  map  of  Del'Isle  of  1703,  (also  in  your 
collection,)  there  is  found,  on  this  new  reprint,  a  distinct  en- 
graved dotted  line,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  old  map, 
and  has  been  added  to  this,  corresponding  very  nearly  with 
the  boundary  as  claimed  by  the  United  States.  This  viewed 
in  connection  with  the  map  of  Brion  de  la  Tour,  and  the 
observations  made  in  the  Senate,  shows  what  little  weight 
is  attached  to  those  French  maps,  which  not  only  contradict 
each  other,  but  even  contradict  themselves. 


ed  line 

ted  by 

i  1784 

to  be 

some 


i 


But  it  is  not  certainly  on  French  maps  of  that  date  that 
we  should  rely,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  understanding 
of  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  1782,  respecting  the 
boundaries  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 
Wo  appeal  for  that  understanding  to  the  maps  published  co- 


46 


SV  4|i 


Im 


temporaneously  in  Great  Britain.  We  produced  and  laid 
before  the  King  of  tiie  Netherlands  all  maps  of  the  United 
States,  which,  to  our  knowledge,  had  been  published  in 
England  during  the  years  1783  and  1784.  The  boundary  is, 
on  every  one  of  them  without  exception,  laid  as  claimed  by 
the  United  States.  No  map  of  an  opposite  character,  pub- 
lished during  those  two  years,  is  known  to  us,  or  has  been 
produced.     The  maps  in  question  are  the  following,  viz  : 


19.  Sayer  and  Bennett's  United  States  of  America, 

with  the  British  Possessions,  &c.,  London,.. 

20.  Bew's  North  America,  &c.,  engraved  for  the 

Political  Magazine,  and  annexed  to  the  Report 
of  Parliamentary  Debates  of  February 

21.  J.  Wallis's  United  States  of  North  America. 

London, 

22.  J.  Gary's  United  States  of  America,  &c.  London, 

23.  W.  Faden's  United  States  of  North  America, 

with  the  British  and  Spanish  territories,  &c. 

24.  S.  Dunn's  United  States  of  North  America,  with 

the   British   Dominions,   &c.     London 

f  25.  Bowles'  Map  of  North  America  and  West  In- 
dies, «&c.     London,  Bowles  and  Carver. 

26.  Bowles'  Pocket  Map  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  British  Possessions,  &c.    London,. . 

27.  Albert  and  Lotter's  North  America,  &c 

29.  J.  Gary's  North  America,  &c.,  according  to  the 

Preliminary  Articles  of  Peace,  &c.,  collected 
from  the  materials  of  Gov.  Pownall.  London, 


1783 

1783 

1783 
1783 

1783 

1783 


1784 
1784 


1783 


gio 

ca 

feU 

Os 

die 


thv 
de 


When  it  is  recollected,  that  a  strong  opposition  was  made 
in  England  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  ;  that,  in  the  Parlia- 
mentary debate  of  the  17th  February,  1783,  Lord  Carlisle 
said,  that  the  Ministers  "  had  through  inaccuracy  or  egre- 


and  laid 
|hc  United 
)lished  in 
mdary  is, 
[aimed  by 
Jter,  pub- 
Ihas  been 
b  viz  : 

ca, 

,..    1783 

the 
ort 

1783 

ca. 

..    1783 
f)n,  1783 
^a, 
'C.  1783 

th 

..    1783 

n- 

of 

.    1784 

.    1784 

e 

i 

,  1783 

irnade 

Parlia- 

arlisle 

egre- 


47 


gious  folly  drawn  such  a  line  of  boundary  between  Ameri- 
ca and  Great  Britain,  as  delivered  Canada  and  Nom  Scotia 
fettered  into  the  hands  of  the  American  Congress;"  that  Mr. 
Oswald  was  then  in  England  ;  and  that  the  British  Ministry 
did  not  attempt,  either  by  any  map,  or  in  any  other  shape 
whatever,  to  correct  the  unfavorable  impression  (if  this  was 
founded  in  error)  made  on  the  public  mind  by  all  the  maps 
thus  published :  and  when  you  combine  this  with  the  evi- 
dence afforded  by  Mr.  Jay's  map  of  the  intentions  of  the 
parties ;  can  any  doubt  remain,  in  any  candid  mind,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  terms  of  the  treaty  were  understood 
by  the  British  negotiator  and  by  the  British  Government  ? 

I  must  now  advert  to  another  map.  Amongst  other  doc- 
uments annexed  to  the  proceedings  of  the  joint  commission 
of  1818,  there  was  a  report  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  Egbert  Benson,  the  third  Commissioner  and  Um- 
pire in  the  joint  commission  which,  in  1798,  decided  which 
was  the  true  River  St.  Croix.  This  report  contains  at  large 
the  reasons  which  induced  him  to  decide,  contrary  to  the 
claim  of  Massachusetts,  that  the  Schoodiac,  and  not  the 
Magaguadavic,  was  the  true  River  St.  Croix.  He  there 
says,  that  the  Agent  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  stated  : 


"  That  Mitchell's  map,  published  in  1755,  was  before  tiie 
Commissioners  who  negotiated  and  concluded  the  pro- 
visional treaty  of  peace  at  Paris  in  1782 ;  from  that  they 
took  their  ideas  of  the  country,  upon  that  they  marked  the 
dividing  line  between  the  two  nations,  and  by  the  line 
marked  upon  it  their  intention  is  well  explained,  that  the 
river  intended  by  the  name  of  St.  Croix,  in  the  treaty, 
was  the  eastern  river  which  empties  its  waters  into  the 
Bay  of  Passamaquoddy." 


« 
<t 
<( 

(( 
(( 


48 


"  And  he  thereupon  offered  in  evidence  the  testimony  of 
the  three  American  Commissioners,  as  contained  in  the 
following  depositions  of  two  of  them,  and  letter  from  the 
other,  to  Mr.  Secretary  Jefferson,  of  the  8th  of  April, 
1 790,  and  also  a  map  of  Mitchell,  as  the  identical  copy 
which  the  Commissioners  had  before  them  at  Paris,  hav- 
ing been  found  deposited  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  for  the  United  States,  and  having  the  eastern  bound- 
ary of  the  United  States  traced  on  it  with  a  pen  or 
pencil,  through  ihe  middle  of  the  River  St.  Croix,  as  laid 
down  on  the  map,  to  its  source,  and  continued  thence 
north  as  far  as  to  where,  most  probably,  it  was  supposed 
by  whoever  it  was  done,  that  the  highlands  mentioned 
in  the  treaty  are." 


of 
C( 


o 


It 


I  had,  during  the  summer  of  the  year  1828,  been  engaged 
in  collecting  evidence  which  could  be  procured  in  the  Re- 
cords of  Massachusetts  and  of  New- York.  None  could,  ac- 
cording to  the  convention  of  1827,  be  laid  before  the  Arbi- 
ter, which  was  not,  on  or  before  the  1st  of  January,  1829, 
communicated  to  the  British  Minister  at  Washington.  On  my 
arrival  there  in  the  beginning  of  November,  1828,  one  of  my 
first  inquiries  at  the  Department  of  State,  was  to  ascertain 
what  had  become  of  the  map  thus  stated  to  have  been  of- 
fered in  evidence  in  the  year  1798.  And  a  map  of  Mitchell 
was  immediately  produced  to  me  by  the  First  Clerk,  (Mr. 
D.  C.  BiiENT,)  as  being  the  identical  map  in  question.  There 
had  been  traced  on  it,  originally  with  a  pencil  and  over  it 
with  a  pen,  the  boundary  of  the  United  States  in  conformity 
with  their  claim.  There  was  no  endorsement  or  certificate 
on  the  map,  showing  by  whom  it  was  deposited  in  the  office. 
Mr.  Brent  was  persuaded  it  was  the  map,  from  tradition, 
and  had  never  inquired  into  the  proofs.  Assisted  by  him,  I 
made  a  thorough  search  amongst  the  files  and  other  pnptrs 


49 

of  the  office,  and  could  not  discover  any  letter  from  the 
Commissioners,  or  either  of  them,  announcing  the  transmis- 
sion of  that  map.  Although  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  this 
being  that  which  had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  above- 
mentioned  Agent,  (Judge,  since  Governor  Sullivan,)  in  the 
year  1798,  as  the  identical  copy  used  by  the  negotiators  of 
the  treaty,  and  on  which  they  had  traced  the  boundary  line 
of  the  treaty ;  yet,  unable  to  produce  positive  evidence  of 
its  having  been  thus  originally  deposited  as  such,  wo  con- 
cluded not  to  lay  the  map  as  evidence  before  the  King  of 
the  Netherlands.  It  appeared  to  us  that,  whatever  might 
be  our  conviction,  it  would  be  doing  injury  to  a  claim  so  in- 
disputable as  that  of  the  United  States,  to  attempt  to  support 
it  by  any  equivocal  or  disputable  evidence.  I  leave  you  to 
decide,  taking  all  the  circumstances  of  both  cases  into  con- 
sideration, whether  there  is  not  a  much  stronger  probability 
of  the  genuineness  of  that  map,  and  of  its  being  in  fact  that 
on  which,  according  to  the  joint  testimony  of  our  Commis- 
sioners, the  boundary  line  was  traced  by  them,  than  that  the 
French  map  with  the  red  line,  found  in  the  French  archives, 
is  the  map  on  which  Dr.  Franklin  had  traced  the  bounda- 
ry. And  you  may  also  judge  whether  the  course,  adopted 
on  that  occasion  by  the  Agents  of  the  United  States,  was 
not  the  wisest  as  well  as  the  most  honest  ?  whether  it  was 
not  more  consistent  with  propriety  and  sound  policy  to 
place  no  reliance  on  equivocal  and  disputable  evidence,  than 
to  attempt  to  sustain  a  claim  by  conjectural  inferences  ? 


With  respect  to  the  map  sent  by  Dr.  Franklin  to  Mr. 
Jefferson  in  April,  1790,  I  never  saw  it.  I  am  confident 
it  was  not  in  the  office  of  the  Department  of  State  in  No- 
vember, 1828  ;  und  there  was  not,  at  that  time,  any  know- 
ledge or  recollection  of  it  in  the  department. 


•''1 

If 


.,  :.  I: 


'Hi '  H 


50 


It  appears  certain  that  it  had  disappeared  before  the  year 
1818.  For  Dr.  Franklin's  letter,  which  mentions  it,  was 
quoted  in  his  argument  by  the  Agent  of  the  United  States 
under  the  Joint  Commission.  Had  the  map  then  existed,  and 
been  favorable  to  the  claim  of  the  United  States,  he  would 
most  assuredly  have  laid  it  before  the  Board.  And,  if  un- 
favorable, he  would  not  certainly  have  called  the  attention 
of  the  adverse  party  to  it,  by  producing  Dr.  Franklin's 
letter.  It  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  allude  to  this,  since 
it  only  corroborated  the  fact  of  Mitchell's  map  having  been 
used  by  the  negotiators — a  fact  already  proved  by  a  joint 
letter  of  the  American  Commissioners,  and  by  the  deposi- 
tions of  two  of  them. 

It  is  not  now  certainly  necessary  for  me  to  defend  the 
officers  of  our  Government  against  the  charges  or  innuendoes 
which  have  been  directed  against  them. 

To  entertain,  notwithstanding  the  map  with  a  red  line 
ascribed  to  Dr.  Franklin,  a  sincere  and  perfect  conviction 
of  the  justice  of  the  claim  of  the  United  States,  is  a  charge 
to  which,  if  it  be  one,  we  must  all  plead  guilty. 

Whether  the  Secretary  of  State  communicated  to  the 
British  Envoy  the  information  received  from  Mr.  Sparks,  I 
do  not  know.  But  I  do  know  what  I  would  have  done,  had 
I  been  in  his  place.  There  is  with  me  a  peremptory  reason, 
why  I  should  not  have  communicated  to  him  a  single  tittle 
of  any  evidence  which  might  be  used  or  distorted  against 
the  United  States. 

We  publish  every  thing,  and,  in  the  course  of  this  contro- 
versy, the  British  Government  has  had  the  advantage  of 


51 


e  year 
it,  was 
I  States 
'd,  and 
would 
if  un- 
lention 
:lin*s 
since 
been 
joint 
eposi- 


using,  and  has  most  freely  made  use  of,  all  the  instructions, 
resolutions,  despatches,  letters  public  or  confidential,  which 
had  ever  passed  between  our  Government  and  its  Ministers 
or  Agents  of  every  description.  There  does  not  exist  with- 
in my  knowledge,  in  any  of  our  public  offices,  a  single  letter, 
paper,  or  document,  of  a  date  prior  to  the  year  182G,  relative 
to  the  subject,  which  has  not  been  published.  I  neither  deny 
the  right  of  the  British  Government  to  have  availed  itself  of 
those  documents,  or  affirm,  that  we  had  a  right  to  ask  from 
it  a  similar  communication. 

But  it  is  a  fact,  that  that  Government  has  never  commu- 
nicated to  ours,  or  published,  a  single  line,  either  of  its  instruc- 
tions to  Mr.  Oswald,  to  Mr.  Strachv,  or  to  any  other  Agent 
employed  in  the  negotiations  of  1782,  or  of  the  communica- 
tions made  to  it,  during  the  course  of  those  negotiations,  by 
Mr.  Oswald  or  any  other  Agent,  nor  of  any  instructions, 
communications,  or  correspondence  of  a  subsequent  date  on 
the  same  subject. 


It  is  impossible  for  us  to  know,  whether  any  of  those  doc- 
uments would  have  thrown  any  light  on  the  subject.  But  I 
do  say  that,  so  long  as  they  were  not  communicated  to  our 
Government,  that  of  Great  Britain  had  no  right  to  ask,  and, 
I  am  confident,  did  not  ask  or  expect  a  communication  of 
any  evidence  whatever,  that  might  either  have  escaped  no- 
tice, or  lately  come  to  the  knowledge  of  our  public  officers. 

If.  notwithstanding  the  universal  conviction  of  the  right 
of  the  United  States  to  the  entire  disputed  territory,  the  late 
compromise  has  met  with  general  approbation  in  America, 
it  must  be  principally  ascribed  to  the  ardent  desire  of  pre- 
serving peace,  and  to  the  comparative  insignificance  of  the 
subject  of  contention.    With  our  Government,  the  true  ques- 


53 


tion  must  have  been,  whether  it  was  proper  to  enter  into  a 
negotiation  for  a  compromise,  which  implied  a  partial 
abandonment  of  absolute  rights,  and  converted  the  question 
of  right  into  one  of  mutual  convenience?  In  deciding  this, 
the  relative  position  in  which  the  two  countries  were  actu- 
ally placed  by  the  course  of  events,  must  necessarily  be 
taken  into  consideration. 


sary 
cere 
in  i\ 
and 
the 


;i 


:ir:t 


; 


The  award  of  the  former  Arbiter,  tlie  fruitless  negotia- 
tions of  the  ensuing  eleven  years,  the  failure  even  of  the 
attempts  to  conclude  an  agreement  preparatory  to  another 
arbitration,  the  delays  with  which  this  would  be  attended, 
together  with  the  uncertainty  of  the  result,  the  opinions  or 
prejudices  prevailing  in  England,  the  irritation  and  the  col- 
lisions in  the  contested  territory,  were  positive  facts,  which 
had  a  powerful  effect  on  both  Governments,  and  controlled 
their  conduct.  That  of  Great  Britain  did,  by  the  special 
mission  of  Lord  Ashburton,  give  an  unequivocal  proof  of  its 
desire  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and  that  an  amicable 
arrangement  might  be  concluded.  Under  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  as  it  now  stood,  I  am  clearly  of  opinion, 
in  common  with  a  great  majority  of  the  nation,  that  it  was 
right  and  proper  to  meet  this  overture  with  a  similar  spirit. 
The  assent  of  the  State  of  Maine  was  indispensable.  This 
once  obtained,  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  concessions,  which 
have  been  accepted  as  equivalents  for  the  territory  yielded 
by  the  treaty,  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  and  of  very  secondary 
importance. 


I  regret  that  it  should  have  been  necessary  to  resort  to  a 
compromise,  and  that  the  question  had  not  been  settled  ac- 
cording to  strict  justice,  and  in  conformity  with  the  express 
terms  of  the  treaty.  It  is  regretted,  only,  because  an  adherence 
to  these  principles,  in  treaties  as  in  private  contracts,  is  neces- 


68 


sary  for  the  preservation  of  mutual  confidence  and  of  sin- 
cere friendly  relations  between  nations  or  individuals.  But 
in  this  instance,  the  compromise  has  proved  sulisractDry, 
and  has  already  had  a  happy  influence  on  both  parties.  And 
the  hope  is  cherished,  that  the  settlement  of  this  long  vexed 
question  may  pave  the  way  to  an  amicable  adjustment  of 
other  important  subjects,  and  lay  the  foundation  of  perpetual 
peace  and  amity  between  the  two  countries. 


G 


64 


I  .f- 


It'-. 


r. 


!Mi 


Mr.  Gallatin  having  concluded  the  reading  of  his  Me- 
moir, tiie  First  Vice-President,  William  Beach  Lawrence, 
Esq.,  rose  and  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows: — 

Mr.  President, 

Extraordinary  as  it  may  seem,  that  the  document  on 
which  you  have  dilated,  should  have  remained  unnoticed 
during  the  protracted  discussions  to  which  the  Boundary 
question  gave  rise,  it  is,  perhaps,  no  source  of  regret  that 
it  was  not  adduced  during  the  late  negotiation.  I  well  re- 
member, Sir,  to  have  heard  you  frequently  remark,  when  it 
was  my  privilege,  in  former  days,  to  be  brought  officially  in 
contact  with  you,  that  the  greatest  difficulty,  on  our  side, 
was  that  our  case  was  too  strong — that  there  was  not 
enough  of  doubt  in  it  to  justify  a  compromise.  I  am  very 
sure.  Sir,  that  no  one,  who  reads  the  American  statement, 
drawn  up  by  yourself,  or  the  concise  argument  of  Mr, 
"Webster,  in  his  note  of  the  8th  July,  1842,  to  Lord  Ash- 
BUUTON,  can  question  the  conclusiveness  of  the  reasoning, 
deduced  from  the  language  of  the  treaty.  In  this  last  paper 
the  Secretary  of  State  refers  to  the  familiar  principle,  that 
what  is  doubtful  may  be  ascertained  by  that  which  is  cer- 
tain, and  applying  it  to  that  part  of  the  definition  of  "  the 
highlands,"  which  requires  them  to  be  at  the  head  of  the 
rivers  emptying  into  the  River  St.  Lawrence,  about  which 
there  is  no  dispute,  sustains,  even  if  we  concede  to  the  Eng- 
lish their  quibble  as  to  the  distinction  between  the  Atlantic 
proper  and  the  Bay  of  Fundy  and  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  the 
American  claim  to  its  fullest  extent. 


The  map  of  Mr.  Jay,  the  authenticity  of  which  has  this 


56 


Me- 

lENCE, 


evening  been  proved,  establishes,  beyond  controversy,  that 
the  source  of  the  St.  John,  contemplated  by  the  instructions 
of  the  old  Congress  of  1779,  and  in  the  Agreement  between 
Mr,  Oswald  and  the  American  Commissioners,  of  October, 
1782,  was  that  of  the  Madavvaska,  the  source  of  which  is 
marked  as  Lake  Nipissigouchc  on  Mitchell's  map,  and  not 
the  source  of  the  southern  or  western  branch  ;  though  the 
latter  is  on  that  map  designated  as  the  main  St.  John.  It  is 
that  northern  source,  which  was  identical  with  Mr.  Oswald's 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia;  and  though,  when  that  fact 
was  asserted  by  the  Commissioners  of  Maine,  Lord  Asubur- 
TON  treated  the  idea  almost  with  ridicule,  the  document  now 
before  us,  with  the  explanation  which  we  have  just  had  from 
you.  Sir,  of  the  geographical  error  as  to  the  longitude  of 
places  near  the  St.  Lawrence,  compared  with  those  on  the 
seaboard,  would  have  left  the  British  ricnipotcntiary  no 
room  for  refutation.  But,  Sir,  is  there  not  reason  to  sup* 
pose  that,  in  that  case,  the  inherent  goodness  of  our  cause 
would  have  defeated  what  is  infinitely  more  important  than 
a  diplomatic  triumph — the  conclusion  of  any  treaty  ?  The 
assertion  of  our  extreme  rights  would  not  have  procured 
for  us  the  navigation  of  the  St.  John,  more  valuable  to 
Maine  and  Massachusetts  than  the  whole  district  claimed 
by  them  ;  it  would  not  have  quieted  the  title  to  the  contested 
territory  in  New-Hampshire,  Vermont,  and  New- York,  nor 
acquired  what  has  been  obtained  by  our  negotiator — a  tract 
at  the  northwest,  nearly  equal  in  extent  to  all  the  land  sup- 
posed to  have  been  given  up  at  the  east.  But,  aside  from  all 
these  matters  of  territorial  compensation,  a  few  millions  of 
barren  acres  cannot  be  put  in  competition  with  the  removal 
of  all  causes  of  irritation,  between  two  great  nations,  and 
which,  God  grant !  may  be  followed  by  those  further  treaty 
stipulations,  which  an  enlightened  political  economy  dictates, 
and  which  will  render  even  a  tariff— that  prolific  source  of 
domestic  contention— no  longer  a  subject  of  discussion. 


M 


I  should,  Sir,  were  this  an  ordinary  meeting  of  tiic  Socie- 
ty, offer  some  remarks  on  the  map  supposed  to  have  been 
traced  by  Dr.  Franklin,  and  of  which  a  most  unworthy  use 
has  been  made  by  EngHsh  writers,  including  our  old  friend 
the  soi-disant  U-  States'  Geologist — British  Commissioner, 
who,  like  the  condoitieri  of  the  middle  ages,  passed  at  once 
from  the  service  of  the  one  country  to  tliat  of  the  other. 
But,  Sir,  the  American  negotiator,  especially  after  what  has 
been  said  by  you,  has  no  occasion  for  any  advocate,  and,  least 
of  all,  for  so  humble  a  one  as  myself.  I  will,  therefore,  sim- 
ply remark,  that  the  charge  of  concealment  of  documents 
comes  with  a  singular  ill  grace  from  England,  when  we  re- 
collect that  the  only  arguments,  by  which  the  late  Special 
Minister  supported  the  pretensions  of  his  country,  were 
derived  from  supposed  admissions  on  our  part,  or  from 
communications  from  one  American  functionary  to  another, 
and  which  according  to  the  usages  of  all  other  Govern- 
ments would  have  been  inviolate  secrets. 


I  now  fulfil.  Sir,  my  intention  in  rising,  which  was  to  request 
our  distinguished  Guest,  whom  we  are  proud  to  recognise  as 
an  associate,  to  present  such  observations  on  the  matter  that 
has  brought  us  together  this  evening,  as  he  may  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  communicate  to  a  Society,  whose  object  is,  to  pre- 
serve thejecord  of  events  worthy  to  be  commemorated  in 
our  national  annals. 


&7 


Mr.  Webjiter  then  rose  amidst  great  applause,  on  the 
cessation  of  wliich,  addressing  the  Chair,  he  spoke  as 
follows : — 

I  have  had  very  great  gratification,  Sir,  in  listening  to 
your  dissertation  on  the  topics  connected  with  the  newly 
found  map  of  the  late  Mr.  Jay.  I  came  here  to  be  instructed  : 
and  1  have  been  instructed,  by  an  exhibition  of  the  results  of 
your  own  information,  and  consideration  of  that  subject ; 
and  without  the  slightest  expectation  of  being  called  on  to 
say  any  thing  upon  that,  or  any  other  topic  connected  with 
the  treaty,  in  the  negotiation  of  which  it  was  my  fortune  to 
bear  a  part.  I  am  free  to  say.  Sir,  that  the  map  which 
hangs  over  your  head  does  appear  to  be  proved,  beyond 
any  other  documents  now  producible,  to  have  been  before 
the  Commissioners  in  Paris  in  1782.  That  fact,  and  the 
lines  and  marks  which  the  map  bears,  lead  to  inferences  of 
some  importance.  If  they  be  not  such  inferences  as  remove 
all  doubts  from  these  contested  topics,  they  may  yet  have 
no  inconsiderable  tendency  towards  rebutting  or  controlling 
other  inferences  of  an  opposite  character,  drawn,  or  at- 
tempted to  be  drawn,  from  similar  sources. 


Before  making  any  particular  remarks  upon  the  subject 
of  the  several  maps,  I  will  advert  to  two  or  three  general 
ideas,  which  it  is  always  necessary  to  carry  along  with  us 
in  any  process  of  reasoning  upon  this  subject.  Let  us 
remember,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  treaty  of  '83 
granted  nothing  to  the  United  States— nothing.  It  granted 
no  political  rights.   It  granted  not  one  inch  of  territory.  The 


r 


i"'  '  ) 


Si 


5S 


political  rights  of  tlic  United  States  had  been  asserted  by 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  177G,  and  stood,  and 
stand,  and  always  will  stand,  upon  that  declaration.  (Great 
applaiisr.)  The  territorial  limits  of  the  several  States  stood 
upon  their  respective  ancient  charters  and  grants  from  the 
Itritish  crown,  going  back  to  the  times  of  the  Stuarts.  The 
treaty  of  jicace  oi'  'H'.i  acknowledged,  not  granted,  the  in- 
dc|)cn(h'nce  oi'  the  United  States.  (Applause.)  It  acknow- 
ledged the  independence  of  the  United  States  as  they  then 
existed,  with  the  territories  that  belonged  to  them,  respec- 
tively, as  colonies.  That  which  has  since  become,  or  after- 
wards beeanie.  the  subject  of  dispute,  was  territory  claimed 
by  Ciroat  Hritain  on  the  one  bnnd,  and  Massachusetts  on  the 
o{\\ci\  The  (]uestion  was  the  definition  of  the  boundary 
between  the  English  Provinces  of  Canada  and  Xova  Scotia, 
or  New  Hrunswick  and  ^Massachusetts.  But  as,  by  the 
acknowledgement  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States, 
I'ngland  had  put  herself  in  a  condition  to  treat  diplomati- 
cally Willi  the  whole  Union,  this  matter  of  disputed  bound- 
ary between  England  ami  the  State  of  Massachusetts  thence, 
ftuward  became  a  ipiestion  of  boundary  between  the  United 
States  aiul  England :  l>ecause  the  treaty-making  power 
neoessanly  lievolvod  Ujton  the  whole  Union,  as  well  accord- 
ing lo  tlu^  Articles  o\'  Confederation,  as.  at'terwards.  accord- 
ing to  the  Cv>nstitution  o\  the  United  States.  Weil,  then, 
the  question  was.  w  hat  is.  or  what  was.  the  boundary  be- 
tween the  State  o\'  Massachusetts  and  the  British  province 
o\  Nova  Scotia  '  Nova  Scotia  did  not  join  in  the  war  of 
inde',xMidenee — did  net  separrite  Irom  the  mother  country ; 
Massachusetts  did.  and  the  question  therelore  was,  what  w  as 
the  boundary  between  them '  Now.  in  order  to  a  general 
vnderstanding  of  that,  we  mu<t  go  a  little  back  into  the 
history  of  |X">litieal  occurrences  on  this  continent.  The  war 
of  17. 56  brought  on  a  general  conli;ct  on  this  conlinem  be- 


50 


tWGcn  England  on  the  one  side,  and  Franco  and  Spain  on  ihc 
other.     From  that  period  till  the  peace  in  lHV.h  whieh  ter- 
minated   the    war,   Sjxiin    possessed    Florida,   aiul   Canada 
belonged  to  the  French.     Hy  the  peace  ol"  Paris  in   17(»:i, 
Canada  on  the  north,  and  Florida  on  the  south,  \verc  ceded 
by  France  and  Spain,  respectively,  to  Great  Itritain.    Other 
conquests  were  made  by  British  power  in  the  West  Indies  ; 
and  the  British  ministrv,  in  Octoher  of  that  \cm\  hv  i\\r. 
celebrated  proclamation  of  the  7th  ol'  that  month,  delineil 
the  boundaries  of  these  respec     (    colonies  thus  obtained 
from  France  and  Spain ;  and  so  far  as  the  present  subject  is 
concerned,  it  may  be  enough  to  say,  that  the  British  (Govern- 
ment, in  issuing  the  proclamation  of  17('»;{,  delining,  descrrib- 
ing,  and    settling   the    boundaries   of   the   ni'wly  ac(|uire(l 
province  of  Canada  or  Ciuebec,  asserted,  for  the  boundary 
of  Canada,  a  line  against   which  Massachusetts  had  ('(in- 
tended, as  against  France,  during  tlu?  preceding  thirty  or 
forty  years.     That  is  to  say,  the  colony  of  l\lassachusctls 
had  insisted  that  iier  territory  ran  to  the  north  hank  of  tho 
St.  Lawrence.     She  claimed  not  to  the  highlands,  but  over 
them  down  to  the  rivei'.     I'^ngland  had  never  disiiountenaticcd 
this  claim  of  her  colony  as  against  France.    Fngliuid,  then 
becoming  owner  of  Canada  by  coiKpu^st  and  sul)se(|uent 
cession,  described  its  boundaries  as  she  desired  to  (ix  tJHjm, 
by  the  celebrated  line  of  "  highlands."     According  to  tho 
Proclamation,  the  line  from  Lake  Nepissirigfat  tlieriorth-W(!sf) 
was  to  cross  the  St.  Lawrence  and  Lake  ( 'haniplain  in  tho 
45th  degree  of  north  latitude,  and  thence  to  proceed  along 
the  highlands  which  divide  the  rivers  that  empty  themselves 
into  the  St.  Lawrence  from  those  whieh  fall  into  the  sea,  iVc. 
Massachusetts  complained  of  the  proelamatio/i  of  \HV.i  a» 
taking  into  Canada  what  she  had  insisted  on  as  matter  of  her 
own  right.     Mr.  Borland,  Massachusetts  agent,  presented  it 
strongly  to  the  British  Ministry  as  an  invasion  of  the  tcrri- 


w 


60 


I ' 


I'? 


Sii.i 


',  - 


;  )• 


(■■  ' 


torial  rights  of  that  colony.  It  happened,  however,  that  in 
the  interior  of  Maine,  near  the  Kennebec,  there  was  a  tract  of 
country  to  which  it  was  alleged  the  crown  of  England  had 
rightful  claim.  There  grew  up,  therefore,  a  tacit  consent, 
soon  after  the  peace  of  '63,  between  the  crown  of  England 
and  Massachusetts,  that  if  the  former  would  forbear  to  as- 
sert any  right  to  this  territory,  included  within  the  general 
limits  of  the  State  of  Maine,  Massachusetts  would  not 
press  the  matter  respecting  the  boundary  between  that  State 
and  Canada.  Well,  under  these  circumstances,  when  the 
peace  of  1783  was  made,  the  question  was  to  ascertain  what 
was  the  boundary  between  Massachusetts  and  Nova  Scotia. 
The  country  was  a  wilderness,  and  the  line  was  not  easily 
defined.  Many  historical  documents — the  proclamation  of 
1763 — and  many  prior  and  subsequent  proceedings  of  the 
Governments,  were  resorted  to.  Now  I  suppose  that  the  ob- 
ject of  the  Commissioners  of  1783  was  to  ascertain  what  was 
the  existing  line,  and  not  to  run  any  new  line,  as  England 
being  possessor  of  Canada  by  conquest  from  France,  claimed 
under  the  French,  and,  according  to  general  principles, 
would  be  bound  by  what  had  been  the  claims  of  her  grantor. 
Now  it  is  certain,  that  whilst  the  French  owned  Canada, 
down  to  the  very  day  of  its  cession  to  Great  Britain  by  the 
peace  of  1763,  the  French  maps,  so  far  as  I  know,  with 
hardly  an  exception,  if  any,  represent  the  divisional  line  be- 
tween Massachusetts  and  Nova  Scotia  exactly  according  to 
the  line  contended  for  by  us.  The  French  maps  which 
gave  another  representation,  were  the  production  of  a  sub- 
sequent epoch.  It  was  fair,  therefore,  to  say  to  England, 
"  You  must  claim  under  your  grantors,  and  according  to 
their  claim." 


of 


The  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  1783  undoubtedly  meant 
to  ascertain  what  the  line  was  as  it  then  existed,  and  so  to 


It  in 

ktof 

had 

[sent, 

[land 


61 

describe  it.  In  regard  to  the  map  now  presented,  suppose 
the  fact  to  be  as  I  take  it  to  be,  that  it  was  before  the  Com- 
missioners, because  it  has  Mr.  Jay's  memorandum  upon  it, 
and  connecting  it  with  the  proposition  of  the  British  minister 
of  the  8th  October,  1782,  several  things  seem  very  fairly  to 
be  deducible ;  and  an  important  one  is,  that  the  north-west 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  sources  of  the  River  St.  John 
are  identical,  according  to  this  map,  and  according  to  Mr. 
Oswald's  proposition.  How  comes  it  then,  the  north-west- 
ern angle  of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  sources  of  the  St.  John 
being  identical  in  the  minds  of  men  of  that  day,  that  that 
idea  has  not  been  followed  up  ?  Well,  that  leads  to  one  of 
the  questions  about  which  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  any 
one  can  lay  down,  beforehand,  any  positive  rule,  or  decide 
fairly,  without  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts  of  the  particu- 
lar case.  The  Commissioners  proceeded  upon  a  conviction 
of  the  accuracy  and  correctness  of  the  geographical  deline- 
ation upon  the  paper  on  their  table  Suppose  it  afterwards 
to  turn  out  either  that  that  delineation  was,  in  some  small 
degree,  incorrect,  or  that  it  was  materially  incorrect,  or  that 
it  was  altogether  incorrect  ?  what  is  the  rule  for  such  a 
case,  or  how  far  are  mutual  and  common  mistakes  of  this 
kind  to  be  corrected  ?  On  the  face  of  Mitchell's  map,  (and 
a  copy  of  that  map  was  before  the  Commissioners,  as  all 
admit,)  the  Madawaska  is  laid  down  as  a  north  and  south 
line,  or  a  river  running  from  the  north  to  the  south ;  there- 
fore, Mr.  O.swALD  says,  "  beginning  at  the  north  west  angle 
of  Nova  Scotia,"  and  then  tracing  the  boundary  to  the  Mis- 
sissippi, down  that  river  to  latitude  thirty-one  north,  and  so  to 
the  sea, and  along  the  sea;  and  then  says,  the  eastern  boundary 
shall  be  the  river  St.  John,  from  its  source  to  its  mouth. 
He  goes,  therefore,  on  the  idea  evidently  that  the  source  of 
the  St.  John  is  at  the  north-west  angle  of  Nova  Scotia ;  or 
else  he  leaves  a  hiatus  in  his  description.  The  fact,  as 
U 


V.''  lil 


62 


slated  by  you,  Sir,  is,  that  this  delineation  of  the  Madawaska 
was  erroneous.  It  is  not  a  north  and  south  river.  Errors 
in  the  calculation  of  the  longitude  had  led  to  giving  it  a 
north  and  south  direction  ;  whereas,  it  should  have  a  north- 
west and  south-east  direction :  and  this  error  carries  the 
map,  in  order  to  conform  to  the  fact,  from  forty  to  fifty  miles 
further  to  the  west.  Now,  of  the  various  questions  which 
we  may  reasonably  suppose  to  arise  in  a  case  of  that  sort, 
one  would  be,  whether,  in  a  case  of  mutual  mistake  of  that 
kind,  founded  on  a  mutual  misapprehension,  this  error  was 
to  be  corrected,  or  whether  the  parties  were  to  be  bound  by 
it,  let  the  true  course  of  the  river  be  what  it  might.  These 
questions  are  no  longer  of  great  importance  to  us,  since  the 
whole  matter  has  been  settled  ;  but  they  may  have  their  in- 
fluence, and  are  worthy  of  consideration  in  a  historical  point 
of  view. 


The  conflict  of  these  maps  is  undoubtedly  a  pretty  re- 
markable circumstance.  The  great  mass  of  cotempora- 
neous  maps  is  conformable  to  the  claims  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  remarks  read  by  the  President  of  the  Society  are 
most  cogent  to  evince  this.  The  treaty  negotiated  in 
Paris,  by  Mr.  Oswald,  on  the  part  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, met  with  great  opposition  in  the  British  Parliament. 
It  was  opposed  on  the  very  ground  that  it  made  a  line  of 
boundary  "exceedingly  inconvenient  to  Great  Britain  ;"  or 
as  a  leading  member  of  Parliament  said,  that  it  made  the 
United  States  masters  both  of  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Bruns- 
wick ;  and  maps  were  published  exhibiting  this  line  exactly 
as  claimed  by  the  United  States.  These  maps  accompanied 
the  Parliamentary  papers  and  debates.  Now  it  is  very  ex- 
traordinary— it  would  be  deemed  almost  incredible,  that  if 
these  maps,  thus  making  out  a  case  on  which  so  much  stress 


63 


laska 
rrors 
it  a 
)rth- 
the 
liles 
'^hich 
sort, 
that 
was 
id  by 
rhese 
be  the 
^ir  in- 
point 


had  been  laid,  against  the  British  Ministry,  and  their  nego- 
tiation, had  been  erroneous,  nobody  in  the  Foreign  office, 
nor  the  Minister,  nor  Mr.  Oswald  himself,  should   have 
one  word  to  suggest  against  the  accuracy  of  these  maps. 
They  defended  the  treaty  and  boundary  as  presented  on  the 
maps,  not  going  on  the  ground  at  all  that  those  mnps  ex- 
hibited any  erroneous  presentation.    Nevertheless,  it  is  a 
matter  of  historical  notoriety,  that  from  the  time  of  the  con- 
clusion of  that  treaty  till  our  day  it  had  been  impossible  to 
bring  the  two  Governments  to  any  agreement  on  the  matter. 
That  on  the  words  of  the  treaty — on  the  fair  and  necessary 
import  of  the  words  of  the  treaty,  the  case  is,  and  has  al- 
ways been  with  the  United  States,  I  very  much  doubt  if  any 
intelligent  Englishman  at  this  day  would  be  found  ready  to 
deny.     The  argument  has  been,  not  that  it  is  possible  to 
shew  the  line  any  where  else — not  that  it  is  possible  to  bring 
the  north-west  anHe  of  Nova  Scotia  this  side  of  all  the  wa- 
ters  that  run  into  the  St.  John — I  suppose  no  man  of  sense 
and  common  candor  would  undertake  to  maintain  seriously 
such  a  proposition  as  that — but  tho  argument  always  has 
been,  that  which  was  successfully  pressed  upon  the  King  of 
Holland — that   there  was  a   difficulty  in  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  these  words ;  when  we  look  to  localities,  the 
highlands,  the  streams,  and  face  of  the  country ;  and  that 
difficulty  led  his  Majesty,  as  difficulties  of  a  similar  charac- 
ter in  other  cases  lead  referees  and  arbitrators,  into  the  no- 
tion of"  splitting  the  difference,"  or  compromising  the  claim 
— and  drawing  a  line  between  that  claimed  by  us  on  the 
one  hand,  and  that  claimed  by  the  British  Government  on 
the  other.     The  English  Government,  therefore,  has  always 
proceeded  less  upon  the  terms  of  the  treaty  themselves,  than 
on  those  external  considerations  ;  and  especially  upon  that 
of  the  great  inconvenience  of  such  a  line  of  demarcation,  and 
founded  upon  that  as  its  natural  result,  another  inference, 


M 


64 


til 


II  J 


the  high  impossibility  that  England  would  have  agreed  to  a 
line — unnecessarily — which  separated  her  own  provinces 
from  one  another,  and  made  the  communication  between 
them  dependent  on  the  will  and  pleasure  of  a  foreign  power. 
The  treaty  of  Washington,  and  the  negotiations  which  pre- 
ceded it,  were  entered  into  in  a  spirit  of  compromise  and 
settlement. 

Wiien  the  present  administration  came  into  power,  it  de- 
termined, that  as  an  arbitration  conducted  with  the  greatest 
diligence,  ability,  and  learning,  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  had  failed ;  and  that,  as  the  matter  was  likely  at  all 
events  to  terminate  in  compromise  at  last,  it  might  be  quite 
as  wise  for  the  pjirties  to  attempt  to  compromise  it  them- 
selves, on  such  considerations  as  they  might  see  fit  to  adopt ; 
rather  wiser  this,  indeed,  you  must  surely  admit,  than  to  refer 
it  to  the  consideration  of  a  third  power.  (Great  applause.)  It 
was  upon  that  principle,  and  in  that  spirit,  that  the  negotia- 
tions of  1842  were  entered  into.  It  was  altogether  in  that 
amicable  and  rational  spirit  in  which  one  neighbor  says 
to  another,  according  to  the  Scripture,  "  Let  us  agree 
with  our  adversary  while  we  arc  on  the  way  wiih  liim."  Or, 
as  one  might  suppose  two  landed  proprietors  would  have 
done,  whose  contiguous  estates  had  inconvenient  projecting 
corners — irregular  lines,  producing  inconvenience  in  the 
management  of  plantations  and  farms.  These  things,  in 
private  life,  are  adjusted,  not  on  the  principle  that  one  shall 
get  all  he  can,  and  grant  nothing,  or  yield  every  thing  and 
get  nothing ;  but  on  the  principle  that  the  arrangement  shall 
be  for  the  mutual  convenience  and  advantage  of  both  parties, 
if  the  terms  can  be  made  fair,  and  equal,  and  honorable  to 
both.  (Great  applause.)  I  believe,  or  at  least  I  trust  with 
great  humility,  that  the  judgment  of  the  country  will  ulti- 
mately be,  that  tlae  arrangement  in  this  case  was  not  an  ob- 


65 


■to  a 

lices 
reen 

liver. 

jpre- 
and 


jectionable  one.     (Applause.)    In  the  first  place,  I  am  will- 
ing to  maintain  every  where,  that  in  regard  to  the  States  of 
Massachusetts  and  Maine,  they  are  better  off  this  day,  than 
if  Lord  AsiiiuiRTON  had  not  signed  the  treaty,  but  had  signed, 
in  behalf  of  his  Government,  a  relinquishment  of  the  claim 
of  England  to  every  square  foot  of  the  territory,  and  gone 
home.     These  States  get  more  by  the  opening  of  the  navi- 
gation of  the  rivers,  and  by  the  other  benefits  obtained 
through  the  treaty,  than  all  the  territory  is  worth  north  of 
the  St.  John,  according  to  any  estimate  any  gentleman  has 
yet  been  pleased  to  make.     And  as  to  the  United  States, 
if  we  can  trust  the  highest  military  judgment  in  the  coun- 
try— if  we  can  trust  the  general  sense  of  intelligent  per- 
sons acquainted  with  the  subject — if  we  can  trust  our  own 
common  sense  on  looking  to  the  map,  an  object  of  great 
importance  has  been  attained  for  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  New-York,  by  the  settlement  of  the  question  about 
the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latiiude,  along  from  Vermont 
to  the  St.  Lawrence  across  the  outlet  of  Lake  Champlain. 
At  the  same  time  that  these  are  gains,  or  advantages,  it  does 
not  follow  that  because  this  whole  arrangement  is  highly 
advantageous  to  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  of 
great  importance  to  the  United  States,  and  particularly  use- 
ful to  the  States  of  New- York,  Vermont,  and  New  Hampshire, 
that  therefore  it  must  be  disadvantageous,  or  dishonorable  to 
the  other  party  to  the  treaty.     By  no  means.     It  is  a  narrow 
and  selfish,  a  crafty  and  mean  spirit,  that  supposes  that  in 
things  of  this  sort  there  can  be  nothing  gained  on  one  side, 
without  a  corresponding  loss  on  the  other.     (Protracted  ap- 
plause.)    Such  arrangements  may  be,  and  always  should  be, 
for  the  mutual  advantage  of  all  parties.     England  has  not 
any  reason  to  complain.     She  has  obtained  all  she  wanted — 
a  reasonable  boundary  and  a  fair  communication — a  "con- 
venient" communication  and  line  of  intercourse  between  her 


i 


06 


own  provinces.  Who  is  therefore  to  complain  ?  Massa- 
chusetts and  Maine,  by  the  unanimous  vole  of  all  their 
agents,  have  adopted  the  treaty.  It  has  been  ratified  by  the 
English  Government.  And  though  in  party  times,  and  in 
contests  of  men,  some  little  dust  may  be  thrown  into  the 
air,  and  some  little  excitement  of  the  political  elements  may 
be  produced  occasionally,  yet  so  far  as  we  know,  no  consid- 
erable fermentation  on  the  subject  exists.  How  far  the 
United  States  consider  themselves  benefited  by  it,  let  the 
votes  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  decide.  A  greater 
majority,  I  will  undertake  to  say,  in  either  House,  was 
never  given  in  favor  of  any  treaty  from  the  foundation  of 
the  Government  to  the  present  time.    (Great  applause.) 


1^ 


!'    ■ 


m 


With  respect,  Sir,  to  the  publication  of  Mr.  Feathers- 
TONHAUGH,  and  the  tone  of  sundry  articles  in  the  London 
press,  about  the  Paris  map,  I  hope  nobody  supposes,  so  far 
as  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  concerned,  that 
all  these  things  are  exciting  any  sensation  at  Washington. 
Mr.  Featherstonhaugh  does  not  alarm  us,  for  our  repu- 
tation. (Laughter.)  Going  on  the  idea  that  either  there 
must  be  a  second  arbitration  or  a  settlement  by  compromise, 
— finding  that  no  arbitration  which  should  not  end  in  a  com- 
promise would  be  successful  in  settling  the  dispute,  the  Govern- 
ment thought  it  iis  duty  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  two 
StaleSj  immediately  concerned,  to  the  subject — to  ask  them 
to  take  part  in  negotiations  about  to  be  entered  into,  with  an 
assurance  that  no  line  of  boundary  should  be  agreed  to  without 
their  consent — and  without  their  consent,  also,  to  all  the  con- 
ditions and  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  respecting  the  boun- 
dary. To  this  the  two  States  agreed,  with  the  limitation 
upon  the  consent  of  their  agents,  that  with  regard  to  both 
States  it  should  be  unanimous.     In  this  state  of  things,  un- 


61 


jir 
[he 

in 
[he 
Iny 
id- 
[he 
the 
liter 
ras 
of 


doubtediy  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
Slates  to  hiy  before  these  Stales  thus  admitted  into  the  nego- 
tiations, all  the  information  in  its  power.     Every  office  in 
Washington  was  ransacked — every  book  of  authority  con- 
sulted— the  whole  iustory  of  all  the  negotiations,  from  the 
treaty  of  Paris  downward,  was  produced — and  among  the 
rest  this  discovery  in  Paris,  to  go  for  what  it  was  worth. 
If  these  afforded  any  evidences  to  their  minds  to  produce  a 
conviction  that  it  might  be  used  to  obscure  their  rights, — to 
lead  an  arbitration  into  an  erroneous,  unjust  compromise, — 
that  was  all  for  their  consideration.     The  map  was  submit- 
ted as  evidence,  together  with  all  the  other  proofs  and  docu- 
ments in  the  case,  without  the  slightest  reservation  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.     I  must  con- 
fess that  I  did  not  think  it  a  very  urgent  duty  on  my  part  to 
go  to  Lord  AsHBURTON  and  tell  him  that  I  had  found  a  bit  of 
doubtful  evidence  in  Paris,  out  of  which  he  might  perhaps 
make  something  to  the  prejudice  of  our  claims,  and  from 
which  he  could  set  up  higher  claims  for  himself,  or  obscure 
the  whole  matter  still  further !    (Laughter.) 


I  will  detain  you.  Sir,  by  no  remarks  on  any  other  part  of 
the  subject.  Indeed,  I  had  no  expectation  of  being  called 
upon  to  speak  on  the  subject,  in  regard  to  which  my  own 
situation  is  a  delicate  one.  I  shall  be  quite  satisfied  if  the 
general  judgment  of  the  country  shall  be — in  the  first  place, 
that  nothing  disreputable  to  the  country,  nothing  prejudi- 
cial to  its  interests  in  regard  to  the  line  of  boundary,  has 
been  done  in  the  treaty  ;  and  in  the  next  place,  and  above  all 
things,  that  a  fair,  honorable,  manly  disposition  has  been 
manifested  by  the  Government  in  settling  the  question,  and 
putting  an  end  to  a  controversy  which  has  disturbed  the  re- 
lations of  the  country  for  fifty  years,  not  always  without 


m 


some  danger  of  breaking  the  public  peace,  often  with  the 
eflfect  of  disturbing  their  commercial  intercourse,  spreading 
distrust  between  those  having  daily  dealings  with  one  anoth- 
er, and  always  tending  to  excite  alarm,  jealousy,  and  suspi- 
cion.   (Loud  and  continued  applause.) 


A  vote  of  thanks  to  the  President  and  the  Hon.  Daniel 
Webster,  was  then  passed,  the  question  being  put  by  the 
First  Vice-President,  and  ihe  meeting  adjourned. 


I) 


lis  i; 


NOTE. 


e 


Mr.  Gallatin,  in  his  observations  on  Mr.  Jay's  Map,  contained  in 
his  memoir,  read  on  iho  loth  of  April,  slated  that  the  line  on  the  map, 
designated  in  Mr.  Jay's  hand-writing  as  "  Mr.  OsivaUVs  line"  must 
have  been  thus  laid  down  with  the  assent  and  knowledge  of  Mr.  Os- 
wald, and  that  a  copy  or  graphic  description  of  it  must  have  been 
transmitted  by  him  to  his  (government. 


On  the  19th  of  April,  English  papers  were  received,  by  the  packet 
ship  "Mediator,"  containing  the  Parliamentary  debate  of  the  2l8t  of 
March,  on  the  Ashburton  2''reafi/,  in  which  Sir  Robert  Peel  is  re- 
ported to  have  said : 


"  There  is  one  more  point  on  which  I  must  touch  before  I  sit  down. 
The  noble  Lord  has  spoken  at  great  length  of  a  map  recently  discov- 
ered. [Hear,  hear.]  He  seems  to  think  that  that  map  so  discovered 
aflfords  conclusive  evidence  of  the  justice  of  the  British  claims.  Now, 
Sir,  in  the  first  place,  let  me  observe  to  the  noble  Lord,  that  contempo- 
rary maps  may  be — when  the  words  of  the  treaty  referred  to  by  them 
are  in  themselves  doubtful — they  may  be  evidence  of  the  intentions  of 
those  who  framed  them,  but  the  treaty  must  be  executed  according  to 
the  words  contained  in  it.  [Hear,  hear.]  Even  if  the  map  were  sus- 
tained by  the  parties,  it  could  not  contravene  the  words  of  the  treaty; 
but  the  noble  Lord  considers  that  a  certain  map  which  has  been  found 
in  the  archives  of  the  Foreign  Otfice  at  Paris,  is  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  justness  of  the  British  claims.  Now,  Sir,  I  am  not  prepared  to  acqui- 
esce in  any  such  assertion.  Great  blame  has  been  thrown  upon  Mr. 
Webster  with  respect  to  this  map.  He  has  been  charged  with  perfidy 
and  want  of  good  faith,  in  not  having  at  once  disclosed  to  Lord  Ash- 
burton the  fact  of  his  possessing  this  map.  Now  J  must  say  that  it  is 
rather  hard,  when  we  know  what  are  the  practices  of  diplomatists  and 
negotiators — [a  laugh] — I  say,  it  is  rather  hard  to  expect  that  the  ne- 
I 


70 


gotiator  on  the  part  of  ttic  United  States  shonlil  be  held  bound  to  dis' 
close  to  the  diplomatist  with  whom  he  was  in  treaty  all  the  weak  points 
of  his  case;  and  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  reflections  cast  upon  Mr. 
Webstkr— 0  gentleman  of  worth  and  honor— arc,  with  respect  to  this 
matter,  very  unjust.  This  mnp  was,  it  is  true,  found  in  the  archives 
of  the  Foreign  Ortice  at  Paris,  and  a  letter  of  Dr.  Franklin  was  also 
found,  having  reference  to  some  map  ;  but  there  is  no  direct  connexion 
between  the  map  so  found  and  the  letter  of  Dr.  Franklin.  [Hear.] 
In  general,  there  is  such  a  reference  in  the  case  of  mops  referred  to  in 
despatches  ;  but  there  is  none  in  this  case.  There  is  nothing  to  show 
that  the  map  so  found  is  the  identical  map  referred  to  by  Dr.  Frank- 
lin in  his  letter;  and  nothing  can  be  more  fallacious  than  relying  on 
such  maps.  For,  let  mc  state  what  may  be  said  on  the  other  side 
of  the  question  with  rrspect  to  maps.  We  made  incjuiry  about  those 
maps  in  the  Foreign  Office  at  Paris,  and  we  could  find  none  such  as 
that  in  question  at  first.  We  have  not  been  so  neglectful  in  former 
times  with  respect  to  the  matter  as  the  noble  Lord  scums  to  think.  We 
made  in(|uiries,  in  1626  and  1B37,  into  the  maps  in  the  Foreign 
Office  at  Paris,  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  light  upon  the  intentions  of 
the  negotiators  of  1783.  A  strict  search  was  made  for  any  documents  bear- 
ing in  any  way  upon  the  disputed  question,  but  at  that  time  neither  letter 
nor  map  could  be  found.  However,  there  were  afterwards  discovered, 
by  a  gentleman  engaged  in  writing  a  history  of  America,  a  letter  and  a 
certain  map,  supposed  by  him  to  be  the  map  referred  to  in  the  letter. 
In  answer  to  our  first  inquiry,  as  I  have  already  stated,  no  such  map 
could  be  discovered.  The  first  which  we  received  from  the  Foreign 
Office  at  Paris  was  a  map,  framed  in  17H3  by  Dr.  Faden,  Geographer 
to  the  King  of  England.  On  that  map  is  inscribed,  'A  Map  of  the 
boundary  of  the  United  States,  as  agreed  to  by  the  treaty  of  1763;  by 
Mr.  Faden,  Geographer  to  the  King.'  Now,  Sir,  that  map  placed  the 
boundary  according  to  the  American  claim  ;  yet  it  was  a  contemporary 
map,  and  it  was  published  by  the  Geographer  to  the  British  King. 
There  is  a  work,  which  I  have  here,  a  political  periodical  of  the  time 
of  1783,  called  Berne's  Journal.  It  gives  a  full  report  of  the  debate  in 
Parliament  upon  the  treaty  then  being  concluded,  and,  in  order  to  illus- 
trate the  report,  it  also  gives  a  map  of  the  boundaries  between  the  coun- 
tries as  then  agreed  to.  That  map,  Sir,  also  adopts  the  line  claimed  by 
the  United  States.  On  subsequent  inquiry  at  Paris,  we  found  a  map, 
which  must  be  the  map  referred  to  by  Mr.  Jared  Sparks.    There  i» 


71 

boundary  ».  claimed  by  tW  Bnmh^    U  _ ._ ._  _,_^  ^^^  „. 

d.A„viU».  of  1746  and  •",';  ™  ^t  .,nc.  no  indicion  of  con- 
ferred  to  by  Mr.  JA»e»  Sfahk.  ,  but  „.    To  .ay  ibat 

Lion  between  it  and  the  ^"'^-^^Jl^Z..    »u.  .»"«  ■'  «'« 
,hey  were  connected  U  a  mere  u,,lo  nW  tnl  ^^.  ^^^  ,__,^  ^j„^_ 

.no'hermap.     "--'" '""f  He  date  1753.    That  map  «a. 

„as  debited  a  map.  l-y  """  'f  °j  ;,  „„,  „,„  in  tbe  po.,e,«on  of 

in  the  vn^moT,  of  tbe  iate  Kmg,  and  «  ^^  „^   ^„. 

l  „„r,e  Lord,  but  he  did  »°< J™— a^Ved  line,  and  on  that  line 
.T.:».  IHear.heat.l     •' »  """^  '  ,,„,  negotiator,  Mr.  0.W*..... 
U  written  'Boundary  a.,  f  "'"f , "/ ^  ;,/s,„.„..     tHear,  hear.l 
.„d  that  line  fo.iowa  the  cla.m  o     ',e  U,u_^  ^^  ._^^  __,.  „,    ,„, 

That  ma,.  wa8  on  on  extended  scale.  pWcai  in.|U.riM. 

King,  who  wa.  particularly  cur^u        «»  ec       6__^_^,_^,  ^,,„„„,  ,„ 

On  that  map,  I  repc".  "  l''7;ff';',,„ce,  on  that  line,   '  B""""- 
.he  United  State,-.nd  on  four  d  He  c"t,  Now,  1  do  not  say 

„  a.  described  by  Mr.  OswAtn.       H'";  „,„  „„go,lators ;  hut 

It  that  was  *e>»"";-y"7:'^^„;     ^cl-aimuponcontempora- 
nothing  can  be  more  fallactous  than  ound  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^ 
;  maps,  unless  yon  can  al»o  P'-c  *         y               ^^„,  .^  „„  ,„a  re- 
lators, •"^«''-*=""''lt">.  en  successful  in  obtaining  our 
„r,ed  to  arbitration,  we  f"fj°;,"„„,.„  would  be  open  to  much  d,.- 
Cims,  I  cannot  help  """^^ '^°;*  h^telaimof  Grea.Brit.in  was  well 
eossion.  Meed.Idono.belteveO  a  *»                      „,,„«  to  rattfy. 
founded;  .hat  it  U  »  "'»'"'.'•'';,  ^oh  have  been  instituted  stnce 
I  canno.  say,  either,  that  .he  '"'l"'     ^J,''  ,„„g,Hened  my  convcuon 
Mr.  S»«KS'  di»=overy  have  ^"^'^^     J^^^  ,,  ,hey  were,  and 
rither    way.     I  «WnU  .hey  leave  m««r»             ^^^  ^^^,^^,^,„„  .h.,, 

ring,  I'hinlt,  can  ^^^Z^^:,^^  "^T'"SZ 
if  referred  to  arbitratton  the  'fr'^^y^^^.^f  „„ps,  which  would  not 


72 


It  thus  appears,  not  only  that  the  map  fouml  in  Paris  by  Mr.  Sparks 
had  already  become  known  to  the  British  Government,  but  also  that  the 
map  in  the  King's  library  had  been  in  its  possession  and  was  not  com- 
municated to  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The  books  in  the 
King's  library  had  many  years  ago  been  transferred  to  thb  British  Mu- 
seum. This  map  was  brouglit  from  the  Museum  to  the  Foreign  Otfice 
during  Lord  Palmerston's  times,  and  was  known  to  him  as  well  as  to 
Mr.  Featherstonhauoh.  Wc  have  autiiority  for  stating  that  Lord 
Aberdeen  has  said,  that  lie  was  not  personally  aware  of  the  existence 
of  this  map  till  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  and  that  Lord  AsH- 
BURTOX  was  equally  ignorant  of  it  till  his  rcturu  to  England. 


mar 
by 


11.11 


\i^ 


We  understand  that  a  line,  from  Lake  Nipissing  towards  the  source 
of  the  Mississippi,  had  once  been  drawn  on  this  map,  and  has  since  been 
partially  erased,  though  still  visible.     As  the  line  is  that  which,  in  that 
(juarter,  had  been  i)roposed  by  the  agreement  of  8lh  October,  1782,  it  is 
probable  that  it  was  originally  traced  in  conformity  with  that  agreement, 
and  was  thus  far  the  counterpart  of  that  of  Mr.  Jay.     But  this  line  has 
been  erased  :  and  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  United  States  is  not  on 
this  map  as  on  that  of  Mr.  Jav,  and  in  conformity  with  the  said  agree- 
ment, the  River  St.  John  from  its  mouth  to  one  of  its  sources.     On  the 
contrary,  the  eastern   boundary  is  on  this  map,  found  in  the  King's 
library,  that  described  in  the  Preliminaries  of  Peace,  viz  :  the  River  St. 
Croix  from  its  mouth  to  its  source,  and  thence  a  due  north  line  to  the 
highlands.   And  this  line,  distinctly  marked  on  the  map,  and  designated 
in  several  places  as  "  the  boundary  described  by  Mr.  Oswald,"  carries 
the  northwestern  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  far  to  the  north  of  the  River  St. 
John,  and  thence  extends  along  the  higlilands  as  claimed  by  the  United 
States.     There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  that,  although  the  line, 
proposed  by  the  contingent  agreement  of  the  8th  of  October,  1762,  had 
;n  the  first  instance  been  traced  on  the  map,  this  was  erased,  and  the 
boundary,  established  by  the  Preliminaries  of  .'JOth  November,  1782, 
(since  ratified  vcrouiim  by  the  dcHiiitive  treaty,)  was  substituted  and 


to  recognise.  That  was  my  firm  opinion,  but  I  confess  that  the  speeches  of 
Mr.  RiVKs,  and  Mr.  J.  Si'ahk.s'  iiscovcncs  in  liiu  archives,  Jiave  not  matciiuily 
strengthened  my  ronviclions ;  I  think  they  leave  the  question  very  much  where 
it  was." 


73 


marked  on  that  map  for  the  information  of  King  George  t  ik  Third, 
by  Mr.  Oswald  liimself,  or  some  one  under  liis  direction. 

Anotlier  map  of  Mitchell  has  been  discovered  in  the  State  Paper 
Office  in  England,  on  which  the  boundary  is  traced  with  a  red  crayon 
according  to  the  British  claim :  but  this  is  of  no  authority,  as  it  is  not 
known  by  whom  or  when  that  line  was  traced.  A  copy  of  another  map 
again  exists  here,  which  was  published  in  1784,  under  the  auspices  of 
the  British  Admiralty,  and  in  which  the  boundary  line  is  marked  in  con- 
formity with  the  American  claim. 


' 


There  is  a  great  similarity  in  the  views  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  and 
Mr.  Webster  respecting  the  weight  to  which  those  various  maps  are  en- 
titled. We  will  say,  that  unaltered  engraved  maps  are  good  evidence  of 
the  general  understanding  at  the  time,  so  far,  and  so  far  only,  as  they  all 
agree  in  some  one  respect.  This  was  the  case  witii  respect  to  the  higli- 
iands  intended  as  the  southern  boundary  of  Canada  by  the  Proclama- 
tion of  17G3  and  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774,  and  also  as  regards  the 
boundary  intended  by  tlie  Treaty  of  Peace.  In  both  instances,  all  the 
coteniporaneous  maps  published  in  England  agree  without  a  single  ex- 
ception, and  sustain  the  claim  of  the  United  States. 


Mitchell's  map,  as  issued,  and  whhout  subsequent  lines  traced  on  it, 
is  the  acknowledged  evidence  of  the  knowledge  which  the  negotiators  of 
the  treaty  of  1782-3  had  of  the  topography  of  the  country.  But  bound- 
ary lines,  subsequently  traced  on  that  or  on  any  other  map,  prove  no- 
thing, unless  it  can  be  proved  that  they  were  adopted  or  traced  by  or 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  negotiators.  The  only  authentic  maps  of 
that  character  are  that  of  Mr.  Jay  and  that  found  in  thu  King's  library. 
The  question  is  now  settled  :  and  we  consider  these  and  other  maps 
simply  as  historical  or  explanatory  documents,  and  such  as  it  is  the  ob- 
ject of  this  Society  to  collect  and  to  rescue  from  oblivion. 


The  map  used  by  Mr.  Jay,  during  the  negotiations  of  1782,  was  one 
of  Mitchell.  We  have  annexed  a  fac-siniilc  transcript  of  its  norlhenst- 
crn  sheet.  It  diflers  in  no  respect  from  Mitchell's  original  map,  but  in 
its  being  colored,  and  having  besides  a  red  line  proved  to  have  been 
traced  on  it  by  Mr.  Jay,  designated  in  his  hand-writ. ng  as  Mr.  Os- 


74 


waUVs  line,  and  which  is  in  conformity  with  the  agreement  of  8th  Octo- 
ber, 1782.  It  proves  beyond  doubt,  that  the  dividing  highlands  intend, 
ed  by  that  agreement,  (and  which  are  described  in  the  same  identical 
words  in  the  agreement  and  in  the  treaty  of  peace,)  did,  from  the  north- 
ern extremity  of  Mitchell's  Medousa  Lake  to  the  northeastern  source  of 
the  Penobscot,  for  a  distance  of  more  than  one  hundred  and  twenty 
miles,  divide  no  other  rivers,  from  those  emptying  into  the  River  St. 
Lawrence,  than  tributary  streams  of  the  River  St.  John.  This  puts  at 
rest  the  question  respecting  the  intentions  of  the  negotiators. 


We  do  not  pretend  that  the  coloring,  exclusively  of  thnt  line,  was 
done  by  Mr.  Jay.  It  appears  to  have  been  previously  executed  by  a 
map  vender.  The  green  southerly  boundary  of  Canada  is  evidently 
intended  to  be  drawn  in  conformity  with  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774.  The 
residue  appears  to  be  only  Mitchell's  dotted  lines  colored. 


nd. 

ical 

•th- 

5  of 

nfy 

St. 

I  at 


'as 

a 

ly 

he 


I 


